query_id
stringlengths 1
5
| query
stringlengths 16
147
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
1
| negative_passages
listlengths 19
19
|
|---|---|---|---|
3615 | My previous and current employers both use Fidelity for 401(k). Does it make sense to rollover? | [
{
"docid": "518379",
"title": "",
"text": "I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "514968",
"title": "",
"text": "You can transfer 401(k) funds from a previous employer to an IRA, and invest it as you wish. That $600 should go to the current 401(k) or IRA. Edit - OP has edited his question. I agree with him that each situation is unique, therefore 100% of the details are needed up front to avoid the answers that would be right for everyone else. He offered a valid reason for rejecting the current advice. There is no solution except to simply withdraw the money. It went in pretax, so taxing on way out is not a penalty. The 10% is the real penalty, and it's $60 in this case."
},
{
"docid": "380003",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm sorry for your situation. If 15 years of maximum savings only has you at $60K, I'm going to assume you are currently in the 15% bracket. A withdrawal will cost you 15% (and maybe push you into the 25% bracket) as well as the 10% penalty, and state tax. Don't do it. Be sure your 401(k) has listed beneficiaries. Your wife will be able to take an annual withdrawal, and pay very little, probably 10%, maybe 15% worst case. You reference that she'd have a lump sum. Yes, but she won't have to take it all at once. She should be able to transfer the funds from the 401(k) to an IRA, and withdraw small amounts each year. It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense."
},
{
"docid": "453936",
"title": "",
"text": "While you can borrow money from a 401(k) for your home down payment, there are disadvantages, including but not limited to: The 401(k) is designed as a way to save for retirement. Smaller contributions and balances (due to the loan) in your account will add up and significantly reduce your balance over time. If you lose your job you will have to pay back the loan quickly, within 60 days. Interest on the 401(k) loan is also not tax-deductible, even if you're using it to pay for a home. My advice: max out any employer contributions to your 401(k) because it's free money. After that, extra savings for a house should be in a separate account."
},
{
"docid": "526271",
"title": "",
"text": "Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings."
},
{
"docid": "422084",
"title": "",
"text": "sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house."
},
{
"docid": "413694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "128077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\""
},
{
"docid": "11172",
"title": "",
"text": "Given that money can go into the 401(k) pre-tax, and that once the loan is paid off, the principal is restored, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this approach. Am I missing something or does it actually make sense in my situation? You're missing several things. Here's a list of what I could think of: You should make sure that none of these issues is a problem for you."
},
{
"docid": "42301",
"title": "",
"text": "You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split)."
},
{
"docid": "593356",
"title": "",
"text": "Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant."
},
{
"docid": "48203",
"title": "",
"text": "You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing."
},
{
"docid": "102291",
"title": "",
"text": "Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more."
},
{
"docid": "595875",
"title": "",
"text": "If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place."
},
{
"docid": "309200",
"title": "",
"text": "A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense."
},
{
"docid": "228694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the infographic from the Fidelity. It exemplifies what's wrong with the financial industry, and the sad state of innumeracy that we are in. To be clear, Fidelity treats the 401(k) correctly, although the assumption that the withdrawals are all at a marginal 28% is a poor one. The Roth side, they assume the $5000 goes in at a zero tax rate. This is nonsense, as Elaine can't deposit $5000, she has to pay tax first, no? She'd deposit $3600, and would have the identical $27,404 at withdrawal time. And this is pure nonsense - \"\"Let’s look at the numbers another way. Tom takes the $1,400 he saved in taxes from his $5,000 pretax contributions, and invests that money in a taxable brokerage account. That could boost his total at age 75 to $35,445.\"\" The $1400 saved is in his 401(k) already, there's no extra $1400. $5000 went in pretax. Let me go one more step, and explain what I think Joe meant in his comment below - tax table first - At retirement, say a couple has exactly $168,850 of income. With the $20K in standard deduction and exemptions, they are right at the top of the 25% bracket. And have a federal tax bill of $28,925. Overall, an effective rate of 17%. Of course this is a blend from 0%-25%, and I maintain that if some money could have gone in post tax while in the 10%/15% brackets, that would be great, but in the end, if it all skims off at 25%, and comes out at an effective 17%, that's not too bad. The article is incorrect. Misleading. And offends any of us that have any respect for numbers. And the fact that the article claim that \"\"87% found this helpful\"\" just makes me... sad. I've said it elsewhere, and will repeat, there are not just two points in time. The ability to convert Traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k), and if in IRAs, not just convert, but also recharacterize, opens up other possibilities. It's worth a bit of attention and ongoing paperwork to minimize your lifetime tax bill. Time makes no difference. There is no \"\"crossover point\"\" as with other financial decisions. For this illustration, the results are identical regardless of time. By the way, in today's dollars, it would take $4M pretax to produce an annual withdrawal of $160K. This number is about top 2-3%. The 90%ers need not worry about saving their way to a higher tax bracket.\""
},
{
"docid": "163287",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\""
},
{
"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": "493578",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\""
},
{
"docid": "55954",
"title": "",
"text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)"
}
] |
3615 | My previous and current employers both use Fidelity for 401(k). Does it make sense to rollover? | [
{
"docid": "335991",
"title": "",
"text": "I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "105011",
"title": "",
"text": "What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard."
},
{
"docid": "452592",
"title": "",
"text": "You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you)."
},
{
"docid": "340842",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I am sorry for your loss. At this time, worrying about money is probably the least of your concerns. It might be tempting to try to pay off all your debts at once, and while that would be satisfying, it would be a poor investment of your inheritance. When you have debt, you have to think about how much that debt is costing you to keep open. Since you have 0%APR on your student loan, it does not make sense to pay any more than the minimum payments. You may want to look into getting a personal loan to pay off your other personal debts. The interest rates for a loan will probably be much less than what you are paying currently. This will allow you to put a payment plan together that is affordable. You can also use your inheritance as collateral for the loan. Getting a loan will most likely give you a better credit rating as well. You may also be tempted to get a brand new sports car, but that would also not be a good idea at all. You should shop for a vehicle based on your current income, and not your savings. I believe you can get the same rates for an auto loan for a car up to 3 years old as a brand new car. It would be worth your while to shop for a quality used car from a reputable dealer. If it is a certified used car, you can usually carry the rest of the new car warranty. The biggest return on investment you have now is your employer sponsored 401(k) account. Find out how long it takes for you to become fully vested. Being vested means that you can leave your job and keep all of your employer contributions. If possible, max out, or at least contribute as much as you can afford to that fund to get employee matching. You should also stick with your job until you become fully vested. The money you have in retirement accounts does you no good when you are young. There is a significant penalty for early withdrawal, and that age is currently 59 1/2. Doing the math, it would be around 2052 when you would be able to have access to that money. You should hold onto a certain amount of your money and keep it in a higher interest rate savings account, or a money market account. You say that your living situation will change in the next year as well. Take full advantage of living as cheaply as you can. Don't make any unnecessary purchases, try to brown bag it to lunch instead of eating out, etc. Save as much as you can and put it into a savings account. You can use that money to put a down payment on a house, or for the security and first month's rent. Try not to spend any money from your savings, and try to support yourself as best as you can from your income. Make a budget for yourself and figure out how much you can spend every month. Don't factor in your savings into it. Your savings should be treated as an emergency fund. Since you have just completed school, and this is your first big job out of college, your income will most likely improve with time. It might make sense to job hop a few times to find the right position. You are much more likely to get a higher salary by changing jobs and employers than you are staying in the same one for your entire career. This generally is true, even if you are promoted at the by the same employer. If you do leave your current job, you would lose what your employer contributed if you are not vested. Even if that happened, you would still keep the portion that you contributed."
},
{
"docid": "532839",
"title": "",
"text": "OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs. IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account. You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees. If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies. If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome. Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option. Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance."
},
{
"docid": "301616",
"title": "",
"text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it."
},
{
"docid": "590711",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\""
},
{
"docid": "489790",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\""
},
{
"docid": "216849",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The IRS has a FAQ page about Hardship Distributions from a 401(k). The IRS defines a hardship in this case as \"\"an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and the amount must be necessary to satisfy the financial need.\"\" Included in the list of examples is \"\"certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.\"\" However, whether your former employer allows this particular reason is up to their plan documents. It sounds like, from what you described on the website, that your plan does include this reason as a possibility for you. Next, you need to decide if the projects you have in mind qualify as \"\"repair of damage.\"\" This uses the same rules as the deductible casualty rules found in IRS Publication 547, which defines a casualty this way: A casualty is the damage, destruction, or loss of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, or unusual. A sudden event is one that is swift, not gradual or progressive. An unexpected event is one that is ordinarily unanticipated and unintended. An unusual event is one that is not a day-to-day occurrence and that is not typical of the activity in which you were engaged. Examples are given in Pub 547. If the projects you have in mind are necessary due to an event (like a flood or a fire), it might be allowed. But most \"\"home improvement\"\" projects would not qualify for this. If you'd like a way to simplify your financial profile, an option for you, since you no longer work at this employer, is to roll over this 401(k) into a Rollover (traditional) IRA. This way, you won't have to deal with your former employer anymore. You could pick an IRA custodian that you already have another account with, if you like, and reduce the number of statements that you get. But the IRA will not let you take money out without penalty for home improvement projects, either.\""
},
{
"docid": "352757",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content. Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar \"\"mistake\"\" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well).\""
},
{
"docid": "309200",
"title": "",
"text": "A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense."
},
{
"docid": "64459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match."
},
{
"docid": "228694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the infographic from the Fidelity. It exemplifies what's wrong with the financial industry, and the sad state of innumeracy that we are in. To be clear, Fidelity treats the 401(k) correctly, although the assumption that the withdrawals are all at a marginal 28% is a poor one. The Roth side, they assume the $5000 goes in at a zero tax rate. This is nonsense, as Elaine can't deposit $5000, she has to pay tax first, no? She'd deposit $3600, and would have the identical $27,404 at withdrawal time. And this is pure nonsense - \"\"Let’s look at the numbers another way. Tom takes the $1,400 he saved in taxes from his $5,000 pretax contributions, and invests that money in a taxable brokerage account. That could boost his total at age 75 to $35,445.\"\" The $1400 saved is in his 401(k) already, there's no extra $1400. $5000 went in pretax. Let me go one more step, and explain what I think Joe meant in his comment below - tax table first - At retirement, say a couple has exactly $168,850 of income. With the $20K in standard deduction and exemptions, they are right at the top of the 25% bracket. And have a federal tax bill of $28,925. Overall, an effective rate of 17%. Of course this is a blend from 0%-25%, and I maintain that if some money could have gone in post tax while in the 10%/15% brackets, that would be great, but in the end, if it all skims off at 25%, and comes out at an effective 17%, that's not too bad. The article is incorrect. Misleading. And offends any of us that have any respect for numbers. And the fact that the article claim that \"\"87% found this helpful\"\" just makes me... sad. I've said it elsewhere, and will repeat, there are not just two points in time. The ability to convert Traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k), and if in IRAs, not just convert, but also recharacterize, opens up other possibilities. It's worth a bit of attention and ongoing paperwork to minimize your lifetime tax bill. Time makes no difference. There is no \"\"crossover point\"\" as with other financial decisions. For this illustration, the results are identical regardless of time. By the way, in today's dollars, it would take $4M pretax to produce an annual withdrawal of $160K. This number is about top 2-3%. The 90%ers need not worry about saving their way to a higher tax bracket.\""
},
{
"docid": "452830",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had been contributing with my employer to a 401(k). When I then moved abroad, I found it difficult to stay in touch with my 401(k). The toll-free numbers I had used inside the US, to contact the plan administrators, did not work from overseas."
},
{
"docid": "17166",
"title": "",
"text": "According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it. An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business. Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k) plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year, $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits"
},
{
"docid": "593356",
"title": "",
"text": "Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant."
},
{
"docid": "355373",
"title": "",
"text": "The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example."
},
{
"docid": "38532",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\""
},
{
"docid": "92941",
"title": "",
"text": "Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS."
},
{
"docid": "69774",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's \"\"why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k).\"\" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than \"\"pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money\"\", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not \"\"instead-of\"\" the 401(k).\""
}
] |
3625 | What should I do with my paper financial documents? | [
{
"docid": "500751",
"title": "",
"text": "Regarding your specific types: If you can't part with anything, sure, scan them. Also, there are lots of opportunities to sign up for eStatements with just about any financial provider. They want you to sign up for them, because it reduces their expenses. If you still like having paper around (I do admit that it's comforting in a way) then you can usually prune your paper a bit by statement (getting rid of T&C boilerplate, advertisements, etc.) or by consolidation (toss monthly when the quarterly consolidation statement arrives; toss the quarterly when the yearly arrives)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "82128",
"title": "",
"text": "If a parent has access to the birth certificate, social security card, passport, and other legal documentation indicating family relationship along with the minimum balance, I expect either online or in-person creating a Joint Tenancy With Right of Survivorship account wouldn't be too difficult and allows for either party to add or remove funds. Conceivably the bank account could have been created as a Custodial account but risks when the son reaches the Age of Majority on the account she would lose control. If you have access to the above mentioned documents and depending on parental rights assigned after the divorce you can follow what is suggested in this link: https://blog.smartcredit.com/2011/07/28/what-age-can-i-have-a-credit-report/ to get the credit reports. The credit reports should list what lender accounts are tied to your son. They won't list any 'credit' assets like savings or investment accounts: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/in-your-credit-report.aspx As suggested a credit freeze would be appropriate. If he has reached 18 already, he can do it himself. Unless she under a Termination of Parental Rights order what I mentioned above should still hold."
},
{
"docid": "123013",
"title": "",
"text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion."
},
{
"docid": "420810",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no numerical convention in finance that I have ever seen. If you look at statements or reports that measure growth when the starting value is negative or zero, you typically see \"\"n/a\"\" or \"\"-\"\" or \"\"*\"\" as the result. Any numerical result would be meaningless. Suppose you used 100% and another company had a legitimate 150% gain - where would the 100% change rank? What do my manager and investors expect to see? As a financial analyst - I would not want to see 100%. I would instead rather see something that indicates that the % change is meaningless. As an example, here's the WSJ documentation on change in Net Income: Net Income percent change is the change from the same period from a year ago. Percent change is not provided if either the latest period or the year-ago period contains a net loss. Thinking about it in another context: Yesterday you and your friend had no apples. Today you have 1 and your friend has 20. What percentage increase did you both have? Did you both have a 100% increase? How can you indicate that your friend had a larger \"\"increase\"\"? In that case (and in finance), the context needs to turn from a percentage increase to an absolute increase. A percentage increase is that scenario is meaningless.\""
},
{
"docid": "166826",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's never too early to start estate planning, and if you already have a family, getting your personal affairs in order is a must. The sooner you start planning, the more prepared you will be for life's unexpected twists and turns. The following tips, aimed at those under 40, can help you approach and simplify the estate planning process: Start now, regardless of net worth. [Estate planning](http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013/09/19/estate-planning-tips-for-people-under-40) is a crucial process for everyone, regardless of wealth level, says Marc Henn, a certified financial planner and president of Harvest Financial Advisors. \"\"Many people will say, 'Well, I don't have a lot of assets, therefore I don't need an estate plan,'\"\" he says. \"\"Maybe you only have debt, but it still applies. If you want the people around you to appropriately deal with your finances, a plan is still just as important.\"\" This is especially true if you are responsible for financially dependent individuals, such as young children. \"\"The less you have, the more important every bit you've got is to you and the people you care about,\"\" says Lawrence Lehmann, a partner at Lehmann, Norman and Marcus L.C. in New Orleans. \"\"If you don't have much money, you really can't afford to make a mistake.\"\" Have the \"\"what if?\"\" conversation with friends and family. Before jumping into the estate planning process, it's important to establish exactly what you want, and need, to happen after you die and relay those wishes to those around you. \"\"We find that the best transitions and financial transfers happen when all family members are involved in the [decision making](http://corlisslawgroup.com),\"\" says John Sweeney, executive vice president of retirement and investing strategies at Fidelity Investments. \"\"This way, after a loved one is gone, no one is squabbling over a couch or going, 'Why did person A get more than person B?' If wishes are laid out clearly while the individual is living, they can share the rationale behind the decisions.\"\" Focus on the basic estate plan components. Experts say life insurance, a will, a living will and a durable power of attorney are all important aspects of an estate plan that should be established at the start of the planning process. In the event of an untimely death, life insurance can replace lost earnings, which can be especially beneficial for younger individuals, says Bill Kirchick, a partner with Bingham McCutchen law firm in Boston. \"\"Young people can't afford to die,\"\" he says. \"\"They are going to lose a source of income if something happens to a young couple and they haven't had enough time to accumulate wealth from earnings to put aside in savings or a retirement plan.\"\" Also, the earlier you take out a life insurance policy, the more likely you are to be approved for reduced rates compared to older individuals. Utilize estate planning professionals. To draft these basic estate plans, experts recommend carefully selecting a team of professionals who will educate you and draft what you need based on your individual situation. \"\"Don't feel like you have to jump at the first person whose name is given to you,\"\" Kirchick says. \"\"I think that people should interview two or more attorneys, accountants, trust officers, financial advisors and so on.\"\" According to financial planning experts, the average initial cost for the legal drafting of a will, living will and durable power of attorney documentation is between $500 and $1,200, depending on the family size and location. Continue to review your plan over time. Finally, your estate plan should never be a \"\"one and done thing,\"\" according to Henn. \"\"Every five to seven years, the documents should be readdressed to adapt to significant life events, tax law changes or even the addition of more children,\"\" he says. It is also important to keep tabs on your insurance policies and investments, as they all tie into the estate plan and can fluctuate based on the economic environment. If you have to make revisions, Henn says it will cost as much as it did to create the documents in the first place.\""
},
{
"docid": "437427",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "339365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\""
},
{
"docid": "42999",
"title": "",
"text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk."
},
{
"docid": "224689",
"title": "",
"text": "The issue yo have to consider is that under many state laws, you must give a merchant three opportunities to correct an issue before you can sue them, so check with your state before considering that option. Here's a link to the Federal Trade Commission's warranty information page, which may give you some ideas about what your options are. Keep in ind, if you let someone else work on the computer rather than the store you bought it from, you might give the guy a valid claim in court to throw out your lawsuit! Many times, warranties will spell out the conditions under which repair work can or must be done, so make sure you follow every step to the letter in order to preserve your claim. I would strongly suggest that you start creating a paper trail for your claim. Start by writing a very precise and detailed letter to the store owner, with copies of all relevant documents (your receipts, warranty papers, etc.) included. Explain the entire history, including what steps you've taken to date to get him to honor the warranty. Offer him the option to let you take the computer to another shop for repairs at his expense. Then, send the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the store owner so that he can't deny receiving your letter. This is all in order to make the best case you can for your claim just in case you do have to sue him. Do not take the computer to anyone else until or unless he tells you in writing that he is willing to let you do that. You don't want to risk him arguing that the other shop is responsible for the problems now. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "115562",
"title": "",
"text": "National Document Shredding is a proud Australian owned and operated shredding company providing secure document destruction, security bins and paper shredding services. We have years of hands on experience in the industry, visit us now if you are looking for secure document shredding services."
},
{
"docid": "123356",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\""
},
{
"docid": "83610",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\""
},
{
"docid": "221117",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature."
},
{
"docid": "598562",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\""
},
{
"docid": "301998",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\""
},
{
"docid": "409717",
"title": "",
"text": "I have to ask: At what point do people take into account their own financial responsibility when it comes to these fees? Don't get me wrong, I've been in that overdraft fee loop before and it was brutal so I took my business else where... what I didn't realize at the time was that I did exactly what the bank wanted me to do. Either pay up for the bank forwarding money on my behalf, or gtfo. Banks aren't obligated to do shit with our pennies. By asking them to hold on to our cash, they provide a service including all the attached fine print. Trickery is obviously foul play, but so is constantly over-drawing an account. One or two overdraws should be red flag enough that you're not paying attention to your money. But this isn't the case for our culture. We get penalized then act like victims."
},
{
"docid": "484424",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally, the HSA is self-reported. The bank/financial provider will allow you to withdraw/spend whatever you want from your HSA. They report to the IRS the total that you withdrew for the year (your gross distributions) on a 1099-SA form. At tax time, you use a form 8889 to report this number of your gross distributions, and how much of it was used for medical expenses. Ideally, all of it was used for medical expenses. If it was not all for medical expenses, there will be extra taxes/penalties due. Different HSAs work differently, but for mine, which is held at a credit union, I can get money out several ways. I have an HSA checkbook and an HSA debit card that I can use anywhere. I can also transfer money out of my HSA into my regular checking account to reimburse myself for an expense, or even stop in at the teller window and take out cash. The credit union doesn't need to see any receipts for any of this. They don't care if I'm spending it at the doctor's office or the casino. It is up to me to make sure I'm spending the money in accordance to the law and that everything is reported correctly on my tax return. Nothing is verified unless you get audited. You definitely should keep documentation on the expenses, because if you are audited, you need to be prepared to account for every withdrawal. Make sure you are very familiar with the rules on eligible medical expenses, so you know what is allowed and what is not. IRS Publication 502 has all the details on what is allowed. As far as how it gets counted towards your deductible, you need to make sure that all of your medical bills get sent to your health insurance, even if you will eventually have to pay for it. For example, let's say you go to the doctor, and the bill is $150. Even if you know that the deductible is not met yet and you will be responsible for the entire $150, make sure the doctor's office submits the bill to your insurance. The insurance company will inform the doctor's office that you are responsible for all of it, but they will apply the amount towards your deductible."
},
{
"docid": "445052",
"title": "",
"text": "He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did."
},
{
"docid": "245967",
"title": "",
"text": "I see that at work too. People too ignorant to use Excel to store financial information so they hand you a sheet of paper with 20 ticker tape receipts from a ticker tape calculator showing how they added up numbers as support for a transaction...really? How much money is this costing the company on an annual basis?! Ticker tape fades, our soft documents are backed up off site nightly... EDIT: There are a lot of jobs (private and public sector) that are simply obsolete but people cling to them anyway because of politics and general organizational-disorganization."
},
{
"docid": "507739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"10 to 20% return on investment annually. \"\"When I hear that an investment has a 10%+ return on it I avoid it because...\"\". In my opinion, and based on my experience, 10% annually is not an exageration. I start to ask questions only if one talks about return of 30% annually or more. These kind of returns are possible, but very rare. What sort of things do we need to look out for with alternative investment? First the quality of the website and the documentation provided. Then the resume of the founders. Who are those guys? I check their LinkedIn profile. If they have none, I am out. A LinkedIn profile is a minimum if you manage an investment company. I also look for diversification and this is the case with Yieldstreet. How do we assess the risks associated with alternative investments? I would never put more than 10% of my capital in any investment, alternative ones included. I also try to find financial information on the promoter itself. In Yieldstreet case check the legal advisor. I remember an international fraud case I analyse. The promoter I investigated had seven small trust involved: in British Virgin Islands, in Panama, in Holland, in Portugal, in the United States and Canada plus a banking account in Switzerland and the biggest shareholding company in the Isle of Man. No need to talk about what happened after. The investors were all non residents in the juridictions involved and no legal recourse were possible. They lost everything. These promoters regularly change juridictions to avoid detection. As far as Yieldstreet is concerned, what I read and checked seems interesting. Thanks for your question. I will check it out myself more. I am also a very cautious investor. To evaluate alternative investments is difficult , but no need to be afraid or to avoid them. We are accredited investors after all.\""
}
] |
3625 | What should I do with my paper financial documents? | [
{
"docid": "384469",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's my approach: As for Google Docs, I think that its safe enough for most people. If you in a profession that was subject to heavy regulatory scrutiny, of if you are cheating on your taxes, I would probably not use a cloud provider. Many providers will provide documents to government agencies without a subpoena or notice to you."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "301998",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\""
},
{
"docid": "397527",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the paper, but have read similar papers before, will likely read this paper here in a while. I can see the use for patents to a degree. Not the way they are now, but in some form or another I think they should still exist. I am not under the delusion of they help innovate. I see them more or less as bringing stability to the marketplace/business. The changes I would like to see made, is on certain patents, or probably all patents, that they expire at a certain time. Or if the patent is not put to use in a given time frame that it falls back into the public domain. Expired patents being fully searchable online, for free. I would also disallow any patenting of genes, or anything that nature has produced and or made. If some one makes a new element, or makes an absolutely new gene that has been seen, or found any where else, then sure patent it. But something that already exists? No. I agree that patents do stifle creativity, and ultimately do harm us as a developing nation. Especially in it's current iteration. The solution I briefly went over would give a happy medium. It would do much less harm than now, and offer better innovation down the road. The stability question with relation to business/marketplace is how certain products are made and produced. Some people put a lot of time and effort into developing something and they need a little protection in doing it. 7 years or so should be enough to recoup that back and then some. After that time they can still produce said product, but would have to compete against everyone else who uses a similar design. All in all I think every one can agree that the patent/copyright system needs serious overhaul, and not because it is too weak, but it is because it was designed, and implemented in a 20th century mindset, not a 21st. It worked somewhat well in the early 1900's but since then it has not. Things move at a faster rate now than they did then. As such in this day in age it is a lot stronger than it needs to be, and needs to be dialed back in a lot of areas. It needs to be overhauled by people who know the area well, and have no financial stake in the system one way or the other. Possibly people in academia with knowledge on the system and can offer valid arguments for it's change, and help to bring in common sense reforms to the system. With how fucked up it is now, it would probably be best to just scrap the system, and design a new system from the ground up. All currently held patents now have a 7 year life span. If the patent is not in current use, you have a year to show that you are working toward using the patent, rather than just shelving it so no one else can use it."
},
{
"docid": "473949",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\""
},
{
"docid": "544175",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Honestly just keep track of your income and spending on a piece of paper. Write down every single thing. Also set goals like \"\"ok I will make $1000 this month, and my goal is to pay bills of $200 and only spend $500 therefore I should easily be able to save $300\"\" or something like that. Just do it there's no magic trick despite what some million stupid articles and forum posts will lead you to believe. Saving money is like being in good shape... or keeping yourself clean... it's an every day, every hour kinda thing\""
},
{
"docid": "599174",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's not get too hung up on job titles. People hiring you are not interested in (or hoodwinked by)job titles. Call yourself The Grand Poohbah for all I care - what I want to see is what you were doing in that role, and how well you were doing it! Call your self \"\"Do It All Man\"\" or something silly. Believe me, looking at Resumes is the worst job in the world. When I was hiring people, I will give you my process. I open a gigantic envelope, take out a huge pile of paper. Try to find the application letter. OK - found it - great. Tear off everything except the first piece of paper, and chuck in the rubbish. If you sent an application letter which is less than one side of one page, your application automatically goes into the list of \"\"possibles\"\". Next, I find the CV, and I take the top sheet, and chuck everything else in the trash. If you can't convince me, using ONLY two pieces of paper, and ONLY one side of each: one applying for the job, and the other showing your relevant experience, THEN YOU NEVER EVEN GET AN INTERVIEW. If you want to spend 10 pages telling me about everything you've ever done - and you start at age 17 on page 1, then I will never get to know what you did after delivering milk at age 19, *because I threw the rest in the trash already*. OK, I got side-tracked. Sorry. Job titles mean diddly squat.\""
},
{
"docid": "409717",
"title": "",
"text": "I have to ask: At what point do people take into account their own financial responsibility when it comes to these fees? Don't get me wrong, I've been in that overdraft fee loop before and it was brutal so I took my business else where... what I didn't realize at the time was that I did exactly what the bank wanted me to do. Either pay up for the bank forwarding money on my behalf, or gtfo. Banks aren't obligated to do shit with our pennies. By asking them to hold on to our cash, they provide a service including all the attached fine print. Trickery is obviously foul play, but so is constantly over-drawing an account. One or two overdraws should be red flag enough that you're not paying attention to your money. But this isn't the case for our culture. We get penalized then act like victims."
},
{
"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": "233535",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as \"\"the alleged debt,\"\" or \"\"the debt you allege I owe.\"\" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.\""
},
{
"docid": "131005",
"title": "",
"text": "NO. The legislation requires the landlord to deposit it in a bank. Check out pages 7-10 of the linked document. There is no mention of interest. The second clause, I believe, is probably for large landlords who hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of security. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/tenantlandlord.pdf Q4 Once collected, what must the landlord do with the security deposit? The landlord must either: a) Deposit the money with a regulated financial institution (e.g., bank), OR b) Deposit a cash bond or surety bond, to secure the entire deposit, with the Secretary of State. ( Note: If the landlord does this, he or she may use the money at any time, for any purpose.) The bond ensures that there is money available to repay the tenant’s security deposit"
},
{
"docid": "405777",
"title": "",
"text": "(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well."
},
{
"docid": "221117",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature."
},
{
"docid": "67729",
"title": "",
"text": "Some backstory before my questions. I am a First year student in the UK (course: Finance and Investment). In the future I would like to get into IB or PE. I already have CISI and CFA exams on my radar. My questions are: 1) With the recent boom in cryptocurrencies should I start researching how they work and what are the future prospects of investing in them? Do you think it will become mandatory by 2020? Are GS employees currently working their butts off to learn as much as possible about it and how to profit? 2) What is the best way to network? Should I focus only on insight days,applying for shadowing/internships etc. Is cold-calling worth it? 3) Do actual people work in Clearing Houses? If so, what are the career prospects there? 4) Can someone give me a real life example (in the form of eli5) about how financial institutions use swaps and futures? 5) I recently picked up “Lords of Finance” as a book for my spare time. I am genuinely intrigued but I was told that I am wasting my time and in the future it wont do me any good because no one will know I read it? I am well aware most of these questions are basic but It will be very helpful if I even get one question answered. If some of these questions have already been answered please give me a link. Thank you in advance"
},
{
"docid": "157712",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a US citizen and I want to transfer some amount 10 lakhs+ to my brother from my NRE account in India to his account. My brother is going to purchase something for his business. He is going to return my amount after 3-4 Months From the description it looks like you would like to loan to your brother on repatriation basis. Yes this is allowed. See the RBI Guide here and here for more details. There are some conditions; (iv) Scheme for raising loans from NRIs on repatriation basis Borrowings not exceeding US$ 2,50,000 or its equivalent in foreign exchange by an individual resident in India from his close relatives resident outside India, subject to the conditions that - a) the loan is free of interest; b) the minimum maturity period of the loan is seven years; c) The amount of loan is received by inward remittance in free foreign exchange through normal banking channels or by debit to the NRE/FCNR account of the non-resident lender; d) The loan is utilised for the borrower's personal purposes or for carrying on his normal business activity but not for carrying on agricultural/plantation activities, purchase of immovable property or shares/debentures/bonds issued by companies in India or for re-lending. Although it is mentioned as Seven years, this is revised to one year. Since he cannot deposit into my NRE account I guess he has to deposit it into my NRO account. A repatriate-able loan as above can be deposited into NRE Account. Is there any illegality here doing such transaction? No. Please ensure proper paper work to show this as loan and document the money trail. Also once I get my money in NRO account do I need to pay taxes in India on the money he deposited? This question does not arise."
},
{
"docid": "267068",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Basically what @littleadv said, but let me amplify what I think is the most important point. As he/she says, one thing you're paying them for is their expertise. If the title on record at the county office had a legal flaw in it, would you recognize it? In a way your question is like asking, Why should I go to a doctor when I could just make my own medicine out of herbs I grow in my garden and treat myself? Maybe you could. But the doctor and the pharmacist have years of training on how to do this right. You probably don't. Is it possible for you to learn everything you need to do it right? Sure. But do you want to spend the time to study all that for something that you will do -- buy a house -- maybe once every ten years? Will you remember it all next time or have to learn it all over? But really most important is, title companies offer insurance in case the title turns out to be flawed. That, to me, is the big reason why I would use a title company even if I was paying cash and there was no bank involved to insist on it. If there's some legal flaw in the title and it turns out that someone else has a claim to my house, and I lose in court, I would be out about $100,000. Your house might be costing you much more. That's a huge risk to take. Paying the couple of hundred dollars for insurance against that risk seems well worth it to me. And by the way, I don't think the \"\"due diligence\"\" is easy. It's NOT just a matter of making sure a title is really on file at the court house and has the proper stamp on it. It's all about, Does someone else have a legal claim to this property? Like, maybe three owners ago someone forged a signature on a deed, so the sale is fraudulent, and now the person who was defrauded or his heirs discover the issue and claim the property. Or maybe the previous owner failed to pay a contractor who did repairs on the house, and now he goes to court and gets a lien on the property. It's unlikely that you have the expertise to recognize a forged document. You almost surely have no way to recognize a forged signature of someone you never met on an otherwise valid-looking document. And you'd have to do a lot of research to find every contractor who ever worked on the house and insure none of them have a claim. Etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "470513",
"title": "",
"text": "It's difficult to provide an exact answer as this will very much depend on the bank & the local regulatory scheme. However as a business owner you should be able to provide incorporation docs, some proof of ownership of the company and last years' financial statements or tax returns, many banks would accept this as a proof of income for the purposes of granting credit. In general in most jurisdictions I can think of, a high downpayment will not remove the need to verify income as the bank needs to feel comfortable that you have the ability to pay the remaining 25% (e.g. how do they know you're not a serially unemployed lottery winner) and if the downpayment is quite large they may want some assurance that you got the money legally (e.g. how do they make sure you're not a drug dealer). So probably regardless of how large a downpayment most banks would probably want some additional proofs of income however what proofs are needed may be more flexible than just a salary stub. I suggest taking a look at what sort of documents you may have on hand that can serve to validate your revenue in some way and contacting a few banks directly to see what options they can provide and whether some custom-tailored arrangement can be made."
},
{
"docid": "437427",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "82128",
"title": "",
"text": "If a parent has access to the birth certificate, social security card, passport, and other legal documentation indicating family relationship along with the minimum balance, I expect either online or in-person creating a Joint Tenancy With Right of Survivorship account wouldn't be too difficult and allows for either party to add or remove funds. Conceivably the bank account could have been created as a Custodial account but risks when the son reaches the Age of Majority on the account she would lose control. If you have access to the above mentioned documents and depending on parental rights assigned after the divorce you can follow what is suggested in this link: https://blog.smartcredit.com/2011/07/28/what-age-can-i-have-a-credit-report/ to get the credit reports. The credit reports should list what lender accounts are tied to your son. They won't list any 'credit' assets like savings or investment accounts: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/in-your-credit-report.aspx As suggested a credit freeze would be appropriate. If he has reached 18 already, he can do it himself. Unless she under a Termination of Parental Rights order what I mentioned above should still hold."
},
{
"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": "106249",
"title": "",
"text": "For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests."
}
] |
3625 | What should I do with my paper financial documents? | [
{
"docid": "414295",
"title": "",
"text": "I won't add to the timelines, as I agree or don't care but my two cents are"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "316980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\""
},
{
"docid": "245967",
"title": "",
"text": "I see that at work too. People too ignorant to use Excel to store financial information so they hand you a sheet of paper with 20 ticker tape receipts from a ticker tape calculator showing how they added up numbers as support for a transaction...really? How much money is this costing the company on an annual basis?! Ticker tape fades, our soft documents are backed up off site nightly... EDIT: There are a lot of jobs (private and public sector) that are simply obsolete but people cling to them anyway because of politics and general organizational-disorganization."
},
{
"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": "183247",
"title": "",
"text": "Setting up an entity that is partially foreign owned is not that difficult. It takes an additional 1-1.5 months in total, and in this particular case, you guys would be formed as a Joint Venture. It will cost a bit more (about 3-5000). If you're serious about owning a part of a business in China, you should carefully examine what he means by 'more complicated'. From my point of view, I have set up my own WOFE in China, and examined the possibilities of a JV and even considered using a friend to set up the company under their personal name as a domestic company (which is what your supervisor is doing), any difference between the three are not really a big deal anymore, and comes down to the competency of the agencies you are using and the business partner themselves. It cost me 11,000 for a WOFE including the agency and government registration fees (only Chinese speaking). You should also consider the other shareholders who may be part of this venture as well. If there are other shareholders, and you are not providing further tangible contribution, you will end up replaced and penniless (unless of course you trust them too...), because they are actually paying money to be part of the business and you are not. They will not part with equity for you. I'm not a lawyer, but think you should not rely on any promises other than what it says on a company registration paper. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "450925",
"title": "",
"text": "How to send the full loan amount from Saudi Arabia (money exchange), because I have a money transfer limit? There is no limit for sending money into India. Just use the right banking channel and transfer the funds. If I sent to India, what about tax and all that in India? In a financial year if you are outside of India for more than 182 days, you are Non-Resident for tax purposes. Any money you earn outside of India is tax free in India. i.e. there is no tax for this funds in India. If it is possible to send the money, to whom do I have to send it (my account, or my parents account) Whatever is convenient, preferably to your own NRE/NRO account. Any documents I have to show for tax issues (in case tax) You have to establish that you are NRI and hence this funds are not taxable. Hence its best you transfer into NRE/NRO account. If you transfer to your parents account, you would need a gift deed to make this non-taxable to your parents. I have savings account my self in Axis Bank, for the past 3 years I am paying taxes, if I send to my Axis Bank account how can I withdraw the full amount (10 lakhs (1,000,000)) on single day Withdrawal is possible by cash or cheque You can write a check, do a NEFT/RTGS transfer to your loan account, you can withdraw cash by giving some notice time to the Branch Manager of your Branch."
},
{
"docid": "123013",
"title": "",
"text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion."
},
{
"docid": "576564",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be very unusual (and very erroneous) to have a company's stock be included in the Long Term Investments on the balance sheet. It would cause divergent feedback loops which would create unrepresentative financial documents and stock prices. That's how your question would be interpreted if true. This is not the case. Stock prices are never mentioned on the financial documents. The stock price you hear being reported is information provided by parties who are not reporting as part of the company. The financial documents are provided by the company. They will be audited internally and externally to make sure that they can be presented to the market. Stock prices are quoted and arbitrated by brokers at the stock exchange or equivalent service. They are negotiated and the latest sale tells you what it has sold for. What price this has been reported never works its way onto the financial document. So what use are stock prices are for those within the company? The stock price is very useful for guessing how much money they can raise by issuing stock or buying back stock. Raising money is important for expansion of the company or to procure money for when avenues of debt are not optimal; buying back stock is important if major shareholders want more control of the company."
},
{
"docid": "224689",
"title": "",
"text": "The issue yo have to consider is that under many state laws, you must give a merchant three opportunities to correct an issue before you can sue them, so check with your state before considering that option. Here's a link to the Federal Trade Commission's warranty information page, which may give you some ideas about what your options are. Keep in ind, if you let someone else work on the computer rather than the store you bought it from, you might give the guy a valid claim in court to throw out your lawsuit! Many times, warranties will spell out the conditions under which repair work can or must be done, so make sure you follow every step to the letter in order to preserve your claim. I would strongly suggest that you start creating a paper trail for your claim. Start by writing a very precise and detailed letter to the store owner, with copies of all relevant documents (your receipts, warranty papers, etc.) included. Explain the entire history, including what steps you've taken to date to get him to honor the warranty. Offer him the option to let you take the computer to another shop for repairs at his expense. Then, send the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the store owner so that he can't deny receiving your letter. This is all in order to make the best case you can for your claim just in case you do have to sue him. Do not take the computer to anyone else until or unless he tells you in writing that he is willing to let you do that. You don't want to risk him arguing that the other shop is responsible for the problems now. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "83610",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I do a lot of my own legal work, even sued the IRS, and I always win**. I would not attempt to do this myself. I'd run straight to a tax professional***. But if I did attempt this myself... My position is that I did a 401K to IRA rollover in good faith. Such a rollover is perfectly common. eTrade saw the paperwork and knew I was rolling over a 401K, and knew or reasonably should have known this rollover would be to an IRA, since rolling over to a cash account is a completely insane act which no-one would ever do. I would gather and prepare to present every document that supports this notion in any way. I would then take a hard look at my documentation and see how well I can support that argument. Then I would research cases in tax court to see how the courts treated situations like yours. I would not roll over the money to another IRA account until I had done that. And I would move quickly. This is a hard problem and there are no pat answers. It depends a lot on the finer details. One last thing. Next time you do a move like this, start small. Move $2000 over. ** My real skill is swallowing my pride and knowing when I'm wrong. I settle those, and only fight the guaranteed winners. *** This is not the usual SE kneejerk of \"\"hire a professional\"\". I almost never do; but I would here. It's an arcane area. Also acting on a professional's advice is a \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card regarding penalties or punishments.\""
},
{
"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": "544175",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Honestly just keep track of your income and spending on a piece of paper. Write down every single thing. Also set goals like \"\"ok I will make $1000 this month, and my goal is to pay bills of $200 and only spend $500 therefore I should easily be able to save $300\"\" or something like that. Just do it there's no magic trick despite what some million stupid articles and forum posts will lead you to believe. Saving money is like being in good shape... or keeping yourself clean... it's an every day, every hour kinda thing\""
},
{
"docid": "591168",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\""
},
{
"docid": "582340",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This \"\"assessed value\"\" is not an \"\"appraisal value\"\". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?\""
},
{
"docid": "470513",
"title": "",
"text": "It's difficult to provide an exact answer as this will very much depend on the bank & the local regulatory scheme. However as a business owner you should be able to provide incorporation docs, some proof of ownership of the company and last years' financial statements or tax returns, many banks would accept this as a proof of income for the purposes of granting credit. In general in most jurisdictions I can think of, a high downpayment will not remove the need to verify income as the bank needs to feel comfortable that you have the ability to pay the remaining 25% (e.g. how do they know you're not a serially unemployed lottery winner) and if the downpayment is quite large they may want some assurance that you got the money legally (e.g. how do they make sure you're not a drug dealer). So probably regardless of how large a downpayment most banks would probably want some additional proofs of income however what proofs are needed may be more flexible than just a salary stub. I suggest taking a look at what sort of documents you may have on hand that can serve to validate your revenue in some way and contacting a few banks directly to see what options they can provide and whether some custom-tailored arrangement can be made."
},
{
"docid": "221117",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature."
},
{
"docid": "24421",
"title": "",
"text": "The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed."
},
{
"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": "599174",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's not get too hung up on job titles. People hiring you are not interested in (or hoodwinked by)job titles. Call yourself The Grand Poohbah for all I care - what I want to see is what you were doing in that role, and how well you were doing it! Call your self \"\"Do It All Man\"\" or something silly. Believe me, looking at Resumes is the worst job in the world. When I was hiring people, I will give you my process. I open a gigantic envelope, take out a huge pile of paper. Try to find the application letter. OK - found it - great. Tear off everything except the first piece of paper, and chuck in the rubbish. If you sent an application letter which is less than one side of one page, your application automatically goes into the list of \"\"possibles\"\". Next, I find the CV, and I take the top sheet, and chuck everything else in the trash. If you can't convince me, using ONLY two pieces of paper, and ONLY one side of each: one applying for the job, and the other showing your relevant experience, THEN YOU NEVER EVEN GET AN INTERVIEW. If you want to spend 10 pages telling me about everything you've ever done - and you start at age 17 on page 1, then I will never get to know what you did after delivering milk at age 19, *because I threw the rest in the trash already*. OK, I got side-tracked. Sorry. Job titles mean diddly squat.\""
},
{
"docid": "157712",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a US citizen and I want to transfer some amount 10 lakhs+ to my brother from my NRE account in India to his account. My brother is going to purchase something for his business. He is going to return my amount after 3-4 Months From the description it looks like you would like to loan to your brother on repatriation basis. Yes this is allowed. See the RBI Guide here and here for more details. There are some conditions; (iv) Scheme for raising loans from NRIs on repatriation basis Borrowings not exceeding US$ 2,50,000 or its equivalent in foreign exchange by an individual resident in India from his close relatives resident outside India, subject to the conditions that - a) the loan is free of interest; b) the minimum maturity period of the loan is seven years; c) The amount of loan is received by inward remittance in free foreign exchange through normal banking channels or by debit to the NRE/FCNR account of the non-resident lender; d) The loan is utilised for the borrower's personal purposes or for carrying on his normal business activity but not for carrying on agricultural/plantation activities, purchase of immovable property or shares/debentures/bonds issued by companies in India or for re-lending. Although it is mentioned as Seven years, this is revised to one year. Since he cannot deposit into my NRE account I guess he has to deposit it into my NRO account. A repatriate-able loan as above can be deposited into NRE Account. Is there any illegality here doing such transaction? No. Please ensure proper paper work to show this as loan and document the money trail. Also once I get my money in NRO account do I need to pay taxes in India on the money he deposited? This question does not arise."
}
] |
3682 | Short selling - lender's motivation | [
{
"docid": "356161",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "549040",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\""
},
{
"docid": "390864",
"title": "",
"text": "I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later."
},
{
"docid": "27401",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\""
},
{
"docid": "49794",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?"
},
{
"docid": "253960",
"title": "",
"text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds)."
},
{
"docid": "540011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\""
},
{
"docid": "27987",
"title": "",
"text": "Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt). This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property. After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted. In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office. The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment. If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor. If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt. Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence. They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also:"
},
{
"docid": "501651",
"title": "",
"text": "Start with his website, specifically his seven steps. Most everything else is around motivating people to actually do the plan. As he often says personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance, by which he means that things that make sense financially (paying off high interest debt first) don't necessarily motivate action (so instead pay off the smallest debt first to get motivation). Really the rest is details around those seven concepts. On his site there is a link to a free one-hour podcast for the iPod, and you can pay for the full three hours of his radio show on podcast. He started on radio, and it is probably his best format. The reason Dave Ramsey has limited appeal beyond the US is that he is explicitly evangelical. He views his system as an extension of his Christian beliefs. That sells very well in parts of the US, but doesn't port very well. There is actually nothing religious in his program, other than the occasional reference to biblical verses in an attempt to tie his program into his religion, but people who are really interested and want to teach his program, not just practice it, are going to find they need to be an Evangelical (or at least a Christian) to fit in. Addendum: I should mention that Dave Ramsey is changing the FPU program (and I expect it will trickle into other things) to be more explicitly (although apparently not overtly) religious and have a stronger emphasis on budgeting. See here."
},
{
"docid": "320101",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "499060",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\""
},
{
"docid": "300703",
"title": "",
"text": "The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short."
},
{
"docid": "426223",
"title": "",
"text": "Why doesn't it seem right to you? The lender financed the house and has the first right claim (mortgage) on it, so if you have any insurance proceeds they're first offsetting your debt to the lender. Same as if you were selling the house - first the loan is paid off, whatever is left goes to you. If the property is not lost, then the proceeds are going to you and you keep paying the mortgage. So if a pipe burst and you need to replace the flooring, the insurance will cover it, and you'll get the proceeds. If the building is lost and you're paid the fair market/rebuild value, then you first need to pay off the mortgage. Its standard."
},
{
"docid": "434788",
"title": "",
"text": "Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing ."
},
{
"docid": "559745",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@fredsbend, Hope this helps! \"\"I understand that a reverse mortgage can be paid out in two ways: A lump sum and monthly payments. I figure that if you take the lump sum, eventually, the bank wants you to start paying it back.\"\" Answer: Actually, there are 3 payout options, or 4 if you consider a combination payout as another one. There's a lump sum, a line of credit, or the monthly payout, or a combination. \"\"I figure that if you take the monthly payments, eventually, the bank stops paying out and wants you to pay it back. In both situations, interest accrues and this is how the bank makes money off of the deal\"\". Answer: The only time the monthly payments would stop would be if the borrower defaults on the lenders' terms or they no longer live at home. You are right though, and interest does accrue on whichever payment is decided on. I'm not sure how the lender makes money, probably by the interest, but I know borrowers are protected against high rates and owing more than your house. Here's an article I found that goes over the protections more in detail: https://www.americanadvisorsgroup.com/news/6-consumer-protections-reverse-mortgage-loan-borrowers. \"\"But what determines when you have to begin paying back the reverse mortgage? Some sources online seem to say that it's based only on if you die or would like to sell/move. That can't be right in all situations, because you could end up with a massive debt on a property more than its value.\"\" Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a \"\"mortgage\"\" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything. Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back? **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that. Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?\"\" Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment.\""
},
{
"docid": "118039",
"title": "",
"text": "why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back."
},
{
"docid": "375821",
"title": "",
"text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying."
},
{
"docid": "278821",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> You keep saying this is based on data. Please feel free to provide peer reviewed data supporting your stance that smoking impacts income. LOL, are you kidding me? \"\"The findings suggest why ‘stoners’ are stereotypically viewed as lacking motivation to work hard to pursue their dreams or to be ambitious.\"\" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201307/does-long-term-cannabis-use-stifle-motivation Cannabis reduces short-term motivation to work for money Smoking the equivalent of a single 'spliff' of cannabis makes people less willing to work for money while 'high' https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901211303.htm Cannabis smokers end up in worse jobs and have less money than average, study finds http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cannabis-smokers-end-up-worse-7608737 Getting high on cannabis makes you less likely to work hard for money, study says https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cannabis-marijuana-weed-effects-getting-high-working-hard-money-motivation-a7220441.html Regular pot users wind up earning less money, new study says http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/california-weed/article69339292.html Study: Poorer marijuana users smoking the most (Yeah, they ended up losers) http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/14/study-poorer-marijuana-users-smoking-the-most/\""
},
{
"docid": "440805",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\""
},
{
"docid": "329662",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\""
}
] |
3682 | Short selling - lender's motivation | [
{
"docid": "329662",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "537716",
"title": "",
"text": "Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs."
},
{
"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": "273937",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Summary: The phrase \"\"short sale circuit breaker\"\" rule normally refers to the SEC's recent adoption of a new version of the uptick rule. The new uptick rule triggers a ban on short selling when the stock drops a certain amount. The SEC defines the process like this: The \"\"circuit breaker\"\" is triggered for a security any day the price declines by 10% or more from the prior day's closing price The alternative uptick rule, which permits short selling only \"\"if the price of the security is above the current national best bid.\"\"1 The rule applies \"\"to short sale orders in that security for the remainder of the day as well as the following day.\"\" In general, the rule applies to all equities. 1) The national best bid is usually the bid price that you see in Level 1 data. Example: If a stock closed at $100/share on Monday, the \"\"circuit breaker\"\" would be triggered if the stock traded at or below $90/share during Tuesday's session. Short-selling would be disallowed until the start of trading on Thursday unless the short-sell price is above the national best bid, i.e. on an uptick. Purpose: The stated purpose of this rule is promote market stability and preserve investor confidence by restricting potentially abusive short selling from driving prices farther downward during periods of increased volatility and downward price pressure. Whether or not such rules succeed is a matter of some debate, and the SEC removed similar uptick rules in 2006 because \"\"they modestly reduce liquidity and do not appear necessary to prevent manipulation.\"\" Exceptions: There are a few exceptions to the uptick rule that mainly revolve around when the short sell order was placed or when the securities will be delivered.\""
},
{
"docid": "118633",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\""
},
{
"docid": "345368",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\""
},
{
"docid": "459494",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\""
},
{
"docid": "104789",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "314478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\""
},
{
"docid": "237043",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\""
},
{
"docid": "405206",
"title": "",
"text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem."
},
{
"docid": "226984",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\""
},
{
"docid": "596736",
"title": "",
"text": "The folks who hold stock are the legal owners of the company. If a majority of stock holders become unhappy with the management of a company they can fire the executives and put in new management, or they can direct the company to close its doors and sell off its assets. As a crude approximation, the stock holders are happier when the stock price goes up and unhappier when it goes down. Therefore, executives are highly motivated to drive the stock price up. A frequent criticism of corporate governence is that management can be so motivated to drive the stock price up, that they will take actions that drive the stock price up in the current year, even if undercuts the company in the long term."
},
{
"docid": "79517",
"title": "",
"text": "Not perhaps practically useful, but I found it conceptually useful to learn the basics of mathematical finance, a way of describing financial markets via probability theory and stochastic processes. It's a little like trying to understand horse racing by studying spherical horses rolling without friction in a vacuum, but it does give you some ways of thinking that may be more appealing to someone with a math background. For instance, there's the idea that shorting a stock is effectively owning negative shares. Option pricing is a common motivation. There's a brief introduction, at the advanced undergraduate level, in Durrett's Essentials of Stochastic Processes. At the graduate level, I liked Ruth Williams' Introduction to the Mathematics of Finance."
},
{
"docid": "321742",
"title": "",
"text": "They are not supposed to force any tax or escrow payments in addition to your normal principal and interest payment, unless you are delinquent on your taxes and insurance. If you are late or delinquent at all they can force you into escrows depending on how your Deed of Trust (mortgage) is worded. That being said, I've had to deal with BoA on behalf of clients over the same issues you just mentioned. Their whole system is made to cause chaos and confusion, especially for poor souls trying to complete a short sale, or a loan restructuring program. They are forever losing vital paperwork, or saying they didn't get documents in time, even though you spoke with someone to confirm receipt. They aren't really set up to help anyone, they just give the illusion of it before they foreclose. I owned a Title and Escrow company for many years, and most all mortgages with most all lenders (in our state) read they had the right to force escrow in the case of delinquency or even accelerate to foreclosure. If you've never been late on either or let your insurance lapse, or taxes fall delinquent, they shouldn't be able to require escrows, unless there is specific language in your original mortgage that says they can. Also, most people aren't aware that non payment isn't the only reason a lender can foreclose. Most mortgages read a lender can foreclose for the following reasons: -Non payment -Failure to keep homeowners insurance -Failure to pay taxes -Condemnation -Storing toxic waste, or hazardous materials -Illegal operations and usage (meth labs, etc...)"
},
{
"docid": "300391",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a pretty exhaustive article on that question. Long story short, it is an insurance policy against the possibility that the person selling the property to you doesn't legally own it. If there was some mistake or fraud along the way the proper owner could theoretically repossess the property without you getting your money back. If you are financing the property, it is almost a certainty that the lender will require you to buy it whether you want it or not."
},
{
"docid": "294167",
"title": "",
"text": "You did borrow money for the downpayment. When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans. If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)"
},
{
"docid": "118995",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Go ahead, we'll be waiting. Stop being a cocky moron. I already have and bitch slapped someone else with them. Now its your turn to feel like a moron \"\"The findings suggest why ‘stoners’ are stereotypically viewed as lacking motivation to work hard to pursue their dreams or to be ambitious.\"\" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201307/does-long-term-cannabis-use-stifle-motivation Cannabis reduces short-term motivation to work for money Smoking the equivalent of a single 'spliff' of cannabis makes people less willing to work for money while 'high' https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901211303.htm Cannabis smokers end up in worse jobs and have less money than average, study finds http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cannabis-smokers-end-up-worse-7608737 Getting high on cannabis makes you less likely to work hard for money, study says https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cannabis-marijuana-weed-effects-getting-high-working-hard-money-motivation-a7220441.html Regular pot users wind up earning less money, new study says http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/california-weed/article69339292.html Study: Poorer marijuana users smoking the most (Yeah, they ended up losers) http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/14/study-poorer-marijuana-users-smoking-the-most/ permalinksavecontextfull comments (182)editdisable inbox repliesdelete\""
},
{
"docid": "171819",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\""
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "276975",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool is generally regarded as relatively legit, at least in that they're not likely to do anything outright fraudulent and they definitely have reasonably in-depth content to provide you. The Motley Fool makes a fair amount of money off the subscriptions, though, and they do hawk them quite violently. If I didn't have a generally good opinion of them to begin with, I'd have been completely put off as well. It's pretty shameful. I don't think it's worth hundreds of dollars a year, but then again, I don't look at investing as a second career like the Fool likes to suggest, either."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "60032",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "156835",
"title": "",
"text": "The purpose of this spammy Motley Fool video ad is to sell their paid newsletter products. Although the beginning of the video promises to tell you this secret trick for obtaining additional Social Security payments, it fails to do so. (Luckily, I found a transcript of the video, so I didn't have to watch it.) What they are talking about is the Social Security File and Suspend strategy. Under this strategy, one spouse files for social security benefits early (say age 66). This allows the other spouse to claim spousal benefits. Immediately after that is claimed, the first spouse suspends his social security benefits, allowing them to grow until age 70, but the other spouse is allowed to continue to receive spousal benefits. Congress has ended this loophole, and it will no longer be available after May 1, 2016."
},
{
"docid": "36935",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool article is correct that if you earn UBTI over $1000, you will need to pay the tax, even if held in an IRA. C-corps won't generate UBTI, so you're fine with those. For non-C-corps, the most common are REITs, MLPs, and BDCs. REITs These typically invest in either real estate property or mortgages. The ones that invest in mortgages are sometimes notated: mREITs, and can occasionally generate UBTI. Tip: Don't let this stop you from investing in REITs in your IRA. REITs can be a great source of income and are best held in an IRA since the income will be tax free vs. your ordinary income tax bracket if held in a taxable account. Some examples of mREITs would be NLY, CIM, AGNC. Some property REITs would be: O, SNR, OHI, EQR. https://seekingalpha.com/article/1257351-tax-bomb-mortgage-reits-triggering-ubit MLPs Master Limited Partnerships are also pass-through entities, like REITs, but have the additional complication that most issue K-1 forms at tax time. K-1s can be very complex when the MLP owns assets across state boundaries, which is why I actually PREFER to hold MLPs in my IRA (against the advice of M. Fool) since I won't have to deal with the tax complications of filing the K-1, just as long as my MLPs don't generate over $1000 of UBTI. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4057891-mlps-kminus-1s-ubti-oh BDCs Business Development Companies like REITs and MLPs are also pass-through entities in that the income they give you will be taxed at your ordinary income bracket if held in a taxable account. Examples of BDCs include: MAIN, MCC, ARCC. You'd need to consult their 10-K to determine if there is a risk of UBTI. Tip: MLPs, BDCs, and especially REITs can all be very valuable sources of income and from my experience, UBTI is rare so don't let that scare you away if you otherwise like the investment."
},
{
"docid": "502953",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Tulip mania** Tulip mania, tulipmania, or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble (or economic bubble), although some researchers have noted that the Kipper-und Wipperzeit (literally Tipper and See-saw) episode in 1619–22, a Europe-wide chain of debasement of the metal content of coins to fund warfare, featured mania-like similarities to a bubble. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a hitherto unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis (or financial crisis). And historically, it had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, the world's leading economic and financial power in the 17th century. *** **Greater fool theory** The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. In other words, one may pay a price that seems \"\"foolishly\"\" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a \"\"greater fool\"\" later. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "535459",
"title": "",
"text": "#####	 ######	 ####	 [**Misuse of statistics**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse%20of%20statistics): [](#sfw) --- > >A __misuse of statistics__ occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a __statistical [fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)__. >The false statistics trap can be quite damaging to the quest for knowledge. For example, in medical science, correcting a falsehood may take decades and cost lives. >Misuses can be easy to fall into. Professional scientists, even mathematicians and professional statisticians, can be fooled by even some simple methods, even if they are careful to check everything. Scientists have been known to fool themselves with statistics due to lack of knowledge of [probability theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) and lack of [standardization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization) of their [tests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_test). > --- ^Interesting: [^How ^to ^Lie ^with ^Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics) ^| [^Misleading ^graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph) ^| [^Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) ^| [^Data ^dredging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjiek7a) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cjiek7a)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)"
},
{
"docid": "4153",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall."
},
{
"docid": "466176",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site."
},
{
"docid": "203934",
"title": "",
"text": "\"3 things people think about when getting a plumber: * Can they be trusted? * Are their rates affordable? * Could I just do it myself, or is it dirty & too hard? I think if you smack some item on your biz cards, marketing material, website homepage that address those 2 issues (trust & affordable) then you'll happily attract more customers. Also, a really, free fun way to market would be to have your father do some \"\"How-To\"\" videos, and put them on YouTube, and do keywords related to region. Get ultra-realistic and gritty in the video. Show how dirty it gets, and how much wrenching & special gear is needed. Talk about how much the gear costs, and the danger of a certain chemical etc. No need to worry about losing business. Anybody that has attempted plumbing knows it's damn hard. And if they don't, they will call you when they fuck it up (as I have). But in the meantime, you gain trust, and you dishearten people that thought \"\"I can fix that\"\", and then see your father sticking his arm down a toilet's asshole in the ground.\""
},
{
"docid": "402325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\""
},
{
"docid": "402660",
"title": "",
"text": "$42.05 was the first prospective price reported in the mainstream press, and was a number that I would think got *that* many more people to jump on the bandwagon - see the CNN link I posted. And see this, too: [*ReadWriteWeb:* Were Facebook Investors Fooling Themselves? Psychologists Say Yes - June 15, 2012](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/were-facebook-investors-fooling-themselves-psychologists-say-yes.php)"
},
{
"docid": "66626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "183875",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is a racket. What is a \"\"YouTube prank channel\"\"? Because that sounds dumb. Not trying to be negative, it just sounds dumb. If you're thinking something like that TV show \"\"Jackass\"\" Aren't there like 1000 of those on Youtube now? I doubt any of them are making any real money. I bet you can think of something better to do than acting like a fool on camera.. looking for an investor sounds like a sound plan but you need to have an idea first. The best advice I've heard is try to find a problem in the world that needs solving, and find a solution for it. If it's a good solution people will buy it. And then you've done something you can feel proud of.\""
},
{
"docid": "510760",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not kidding. Maybe there is a problem there. I'm really not trying to be a jerk. My husband could use mood stabilizers. His neurologist put him on an antidepressant which helped a lot. I, of course, got yelled at for suggesting it. You absolutely raged at me right out of the gate. I'm VERY familiar with that behavior. You really should see a therapist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not backing down from my initial statement. 50% of working age men who are not in the work force are addicted to opiates. It's not because they are in pain. They would be better off smoking cannabis. Everyone is fooling themselves if they think the choice between getting high and not is simply a matter of them just quitting. If they could do that they would. At least cannabis is basically harmless and not physically addictive. Go ahead, tell me I'm an asshole again. I don't care. Trust me. I have thick skin after 22 years of abuse."
},
{
"docid": "89403",
"title": "",
"text": "Apparently it is up to the credit card company on how they want to report your available balance. Another disadvantage to the no-limit credit card may not be apparent to most people, but it is something noted by organizations like The Motley Fool, which is expert in many issues of finance and investment. Part of your credit score, about 30%, considers the amount of money you have borrowed, and the limit on your present credit cards. A no-limit credit card company may report your limit as $0 if you have not used the card, or they may report a maximum limit available to you. They may not, nor are they obligated, to report times when you put tons of expenses on a credit card and then paid them off. While some companies will report your timely payments and paid off amounts, others simply report an extremely low limit. For instance if you spent $100 US Dollars (USD), your limit might be considered $100 USD, or it may merely be reported as zero. You’ll need to check with a credit card company on how they report payments and limits on a no-limit credit card before you obtain one. Some people who are scrupulous are paying off their cards at the end of each month suffer major losses to their credit score, without even realizing it, if their spending ability is rated at zero, or their payments don’t count toward showing credit worthiness. Source"
},
{
"docid": "474296",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\""
},
{
"docid": "192884",
"title": "",
"text": "I hate this shit. People have different wants and different jobs. People have specific jobs that are in certain locations. People have families and extenuating circumstances that keep them in places. Don't just flippantly call people fools for living where they do. You are the fool."
},
{
"docid": "151338",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I was simply saying, contrary to your \"\"only a fool\"\" comment, the fact that White Supremacist groups publicly praise Trump makes it pretty easy for the common person who doesn't really follow politics to make the connection. Doesn't take a \"\"fool\"\" at all. You pretty much also just confirmed what I said by stating there are commonalities between their platforms. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. And if you're trying not to be rude in this thread, you should try harder.\""
},
{
"docid": "289314",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of upper management, to find out how many of them actually thought the retail stores would turn around. It seems hard to believe they were deluding themselves, it seems more likely they each were trying to fool their own boss, or the shareholders, a little longer, so they could keep their jobs a bit longer, and pretending that their subordinates fooled them."
},
{
"docid": "33990",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know that this can actually be answered objectively. Maybe it can with some serious research. (Read: data on what the issuers have been doing since the law went into affect.) Personally, I think the weak economy and general problems with easy credit are a bigger issue than the new rules. Supposedly, there is evidence that card issuers are trying to make up for the lost income due to the new regulations with higher fees. I believe that your credit rating and history with the issuer is a larger factor now. In other words, they may be less likely to lower your rate just to keep you as a customer or to attract new customers. According to The Motley Fool, issuers dropped their riskiest customers as a result of the new regulations. Some say that new laws simply motivated the issuers to find new ways to \"\"gouge\"\" their customers. Here are two NYTimes blog posts about the act: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/the-effects-of-the-credit-card-act/ As JohnFx states, it does not hurt to ask.\""
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "185909",
"title": "",
"text": "Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "349866",
"title": "",
"text": "In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes."
},
{
"docid": "136460",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I know some CEOs (for both big and small companies). A few have admitted to me on a few occasions they themselves don't have the slightest idea about being a CEO. The world changes too fast so they have absolutely no idea what's going to work and what isn't when it comes time to make decisions. All they can do is rely on the recommendations of the people that work under them at which point it becomes a matter of trust: Do you trust the recommendations from your CTO? Who did he trust to make that recommendation? The trust chain goes waaay down and it makes you wonder if the people who \"\"know\"\" (at the end of the chain) shouldn't have been able to just make the decision themselves.\""
},
{
"docid": "133908",
"title": "",
"text": "Hahaha, I appreciate the comparison, but that's bullshit. Socialists are putting their own paranoid theories out there, you have no obligation to seek them out and respond to them. Truthers on the other hand are offering reasoned critique of your ideas. You can dismiss their arguments out of hand, but understand that it makes you look like an intellectual coward. Cock-surety may fool weaker opponents, but even then, only in the service of your own ego."
},
{
"docid": "449081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From a more technical point of view, a trust is a legal relationship between 3 parties: Trusts can take many forms. People setup trusts to ensure that property is used in a specific way. Owning a home with a spouse is a form of a trust. A pension plan is a trust. Protecting land from development often involves placing it in trust. Wealthy people use trusts for estate planning for a variety of reasons. There's no \"\"better\"\" or \"\"best\"\" trust on a general level... it all depends on the situation that you are in and the desired outcome that you are looking for.\""
},
{
"docid": "522713",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button \"\"now\"\", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: \"\"What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of \"\" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\" Their reply was; \"\"Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly\"\" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell.\""
},
{
"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": "287156",
"title": "",
"text": "Both a trust and an estate are separate, legal, taxpaying entities, just like any individual. Income earned by the trust or estate property (e.g., rents collected from real estate) is income earned by the trust or the estate. Who is liable for taxes on income earned by a trust depends on who receives or retains benefits from the trust. Who is liable for taxes on income received by an estate depends on how the income is classified (i.e., income earned by the decedent, income earned by the estate, income in respect of the decedent, or income distributed to beneficiaries). Generally, trusts and estates are taxed like individuals. General tax principles that apply to individuals therefore also apply to trusts and estates. A trust or estate may earn tax−exempt income and may deduct certain expenses. Each is allowed a small exemption ($300 for a simple trust, $100 for a complex trust, $600 for an estate). However, neither is allowed a standard deduction. The tax brackets for income taxable to a trust or estate are much more compressed and can result in higher taxes than for individuals. In short, the trust should have been paying taxes on its gains all along, when the money transfers to you it will be taxed as ordinary income."
},
{
"docid": "434592",
"title": "",
"text": "If your primary goal is no / minimized fees, there are 3 general options, as I see it: Based on the fact that you want some risk, interest-only investments would not be great. Consider - 2% interest equals only $1,500 annually, and since the trust can only distribute income, that may be limited. Based on the fact that you seem to have some hesitation on risk, and also limited personal time able to govern the trust (which is understandable), I would say keep your investment mix simple. By this I mean, creating a specific portfolio may seem desirable, but could also become a headache and, in my opinion, not desirable for a trust executor. You didn't get into the personal situation, but I assume you have a family / close connection to a young person, and are executor of a trust set up on someone's death. That not be the case for you, but given that you are asking for advice rather than speaking with those involved, I assume it is similar enough for this to be applicable: you don't want to set yourself up to feel emotionally responsible for taking on too much risk, impacting the trustee(s)'s life negatively. Therefore, investing in a few limited index funds seems to match what you're looking for in terms of risk, reward, and time required. One final consideration - if you want to maximize annual distributions to the trustee(s)'s, consider that you may be best served by seeking high-dividend paying stock (although again, probably don't do this on a stock-by-stock basis unless you can commit the time to fully manage it). Returns in the form of stock increases are good, but they will not immediately provide income that the trust can distribute. If you also wish to grow the corpus of the trust, then stock growth is okay, but if you want to maximize immediate distributions, you need to focus on returns through income (dividends & interest), rather than returns through value increase."
},
{
"docid": "359734",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you sure you're not just looking at prices that are adjusted for the split, e.g. Yahoo? For example, Gilead Sciences (GILD) split a few months ago, but if you look at a price chart, there isn't an interruption even though the split is clearly marked. (Look in the past six months; it split in January). However, you could also simply be watching companies that happen to not split, for a variety of reasons. This isn't a criticism, but rather just a consequence of whatever stocks you happen to be watching. However, a quick search for information on stock splits yields a few articles (mainly from the Motley Fool) that argue that fewer companies are performing stock splits in recent years; the articles mainly talk about tech companies, and they make the argument that even though the shares in Google and Apple have a high stock price: Google and Apple aren't all that expensive by traditional valuation metrics. Google trades at just 15 times next year's projected profitability. Apple fetches a mere 13 times fiscal 2012's bottom-line estimates. These articles are a bit dated in terms of the stock prices, but the rationale is probably still good. Similar logic could apply for other companies; for example, since May 2009, Panera's stock price has climbed by almost a factor of 4 without splitting. The articles also make the point that stock splits were traditionally seen as bullish signs because: Companies splitting to bring their share prices back down to more accessible levels were optimistic in building those sand castles back up. One could make a fair argument that the overall economic climate isn't as bullish as it used to be, although I would only be convinced that this was affecting stock splits if data could be gathered and tested. A stock split can also raise the price of a stock because if small investors feel the stock is suddenly more accessible to them, they purchase more of it and might therefore drive up the price. (See the Investopedia article on stock splits for more information). Companies might not see the necessity in doing this because their stock price isn't high enough to warrant a split or because the price isn't high enough to outprice smaller investors. One interesting point to make, however, is that even though stock splits can drive small investors to buy more of the stock, this isn't always a gain for the company because professional investors (firms, institutions, etc.) have a tendency to sell after a split. The paper is a bit old, but it's still a very neat read. It's possible that more and more companies no longer see any advantage to splitting because it might not affect their stock price in the long run, and arguably could even hurt it. Considering that large/professional investors likely hold a higher percentage of a company's shares than smaller investors, if a stock split triggers a wave of selling by the former, the increasing propensity to buy of the latter may not be enough to offset the decline in price. Note: My answer only refers to standard stock splits; the reasons above may not apply to a decrease in the number of reverse stock splits (which may not be a phenomenon; I don't know)."
},
{
"docid": "402660",
"title": "",
"text": "$42.05 was the first prospective price reported in the mainstream press, and was a number that I would think got *that* many more people to jump on the bandwagon - see the CNN link I posted. And see this, too: [*ReadWriteWeb:* Were Facebook Investors Fooling Themselves? Psychologists Say Yes - June 15, 2012](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/were-facebook-investors-fooling-themselves-psychologists-say-yes.php)"
},
{
"docid": "128371",
"title": "",
"text": "But which effect is larger, short-term stupidity or long-term rationality? Investors may repeatedly make this mistake and forever affect FACE's price because of FB's actions. Maybe the fools who confused FB and FACE last month have learned their lessons, but the market provides an inexhaustible supply of fools."
},
{
"docid": "402325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\""
},
{
"docid": "534290",
"title": "",
"text": "Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.) He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level. Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax."
},
{
"docid": "183875",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is a racket. What is a \"\"YouTube prank channel\"\"? Because that sounds dumb. Not trying to be negative, it just sounds dumb. If you're thinking something like that TV show \"\"Jackass\"\" Aren't there like 1000 of those on Youtube now? I doubt any of them are making any real money. I bet you can think of something better to do than acting like a fool on camera.. looking for an investor sounds like a sound plan but you need to have an idea first. The best advice I've heard is try to find a problem in the world that needs solving, and find a solution for it. If it's a good solution people will buy it. And then you've done something you can feel proud of.\""
},
{
"docid": "102824",
"title": "",
"text": "Wow. Just goes to show lack of understanding or ignorance. No. America is not a country, but continents. No US is not protectionist. It is more global then ever. If you thought we are now protectionist, you were fooled by Trump. >Also I notice that in you trying to cite that graph of the top countries with Tariffs, China and the United States are still in the top 5. So what are you objecting to, that I did not include Brazil and India in my original list? It seems like Russia is the only one not on that graph. If you extended this to all countries Canada would still be in the top 10. You really fucked yourself over here. Lol. What kind of cognitive dissonance is it? Are you joking you saying 1 % tarrif is protectionism? I cant tell if it is your lack of understanding, denial, getting fooled or what. >VENEZUELA IS NOT ON THAT LIST YOU LINKED. Where did I say said it was? Edit. Nice changing the topics btw. LOL Russia. LOL. You must be one of those putin supporter"
},
{
"docid": "89403",
"title": "",
"text": "Apparently it is up to the credit card company on how they want to report your available balance. Another disadvantage to the no-limit credit card may not be apparent to most people, but it is something noted by organizations like The Motley Fool, which is expert in many issues of finance and investment. Part of your credit score, about 30%, considers the amount of money you have borrowed, and the limit on your present credit cards. A no-limit credit card company may report your limit as $0 if you have not used the card, or they may report a maximum limit available to you. They may not, nor are they obligated, to report times when you put tons of expenses on a credit card and then paid them off. While some companies will report your timely payments and paid off amounts, others simply report an extremely low limit. For instance if you spent $100 US Dollars (USD), your limit might be considered $100 USD, or it may merely be reported as zero. You’ll need to check with a credit card company on how they report payments and limits on a no-limit credit card before you obtain one. Some people who are scrupulous are paying off their cards at the end of each month suffer major losses to their credit score, without even realizing it, if their spending ability is rated at zero, or their payments don’t count toward showing credit worthiness. Source"
},
{
"docid": "289314",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of upper management, to find out how many of them actually thought the retail stores would turn around. It seems hard to believe they were deluding themselves, it seems more likely they each were trying to fool their own boss, or the shareholders, a little longer, so they could keep their jobs a bit longer, and pretending that their subordinates fooled them."
},
{
"docid": "116867",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Perhaps just an ambiguity rather than a contradiction - You said, \"\"at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government\"\". You then later said \"\"I'm not conflating trust of the issuer with trust of the \"\"bank\"\". I don't trust either.\"\" The problem there is that, on the Bitcoin side of the fence, there's no one there *to* trust. **You** can be the bank. You can also be the issuer, with enough computing horsepower. Do you, then, not trust *yourself*? Or, did I take that entirely wrong and you meant that directed toward the fiat side of things, and don't trust that Trump won't get us into a currency war with China (or his successor finally authorize that trillion dollar platinum coin to circumvent the debt ceiling - I don't mean that to be at all partisan)?\""
},
{
"docid": "147251",
"title": "",
"text": "Can anyone suggest all type of investments in India which are recession proof? There are no such investments. Quite a few think bullions like Gold tend to go up during recession, which is true to an extent; however there are enough articles that show it is not necessarily true. There are no fool proof investments. The only fool proof way is to mitigate risks. Have a diversified portfolio that has Debt [Fixed Deposits, Bonds] and equity [Stocks], Bullion [Gold], etc. And stay invested for long as the effects tend to cancel out in the long run."
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "454501",
"title": "",
"text": "Hmm.. hey bro, not personal, but is what comes to mind: I guess my answer will be highly down voted... =P"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "31182",
"title": "",
"text": "A trust is a financial arrangement to put aside money over a period of time (typically years), for a specific purpose to benefit someone. Two purposes of trusts are 1) providing for retirement and 2) providing for a child or minor. There are three parties to a trust: 1) A grantor, the person who establishes and funds a trust. 2) A beneficiary, a person who receives the benefits. 3) a trustee, someone who acts in a fiduciary capacity between the grantor and beneficiary. No one person can be all three parties. A single person can be two of out those three parties. A RETIREMENT trust is something like an IRA (individual retirement account). Here, a person can be both the grantor (contributor) to the IRA, and the beneficiary (a withdrawer after retirement). But you need a bank or a broker to act as a fiduciary, and to handle the reporting to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). Pension plans have employers as grantors, employees as beneficiaries, and (usually) a third party as trustee. A MINORS' trust can be established under a Gift to the Minors' Act, or other trust mechanisms, such as a Generation Skipping Trust. Here, a parent may be both grantor and trustee (although usually a third party is a trustee). A sum of money is put aside over a period of years for the benefit of a minor, for a college education, or for the minor's attaining a certain age: a minimum of 18, sometimes 21, possibly 25 or even older, depending on when the grantor feels that the minor is responsible enough to handle the money."
},
{
"docid": "522619",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Trustee has allowed me to act as his \"\"agent\"\", continuing to pay bills, and take care of much of the administrative affairs for my mother's estate since I did all of it for years before she passed away. I was not paid for any of this work. ... The expenses were more than $30K last year, and there is still a punch list to go this year. The trust should reimburse your expenses and deduct them on the trust tax return. Since the Trust owned the property in 2015, and I will receive ownership this month, can last year's expenses incurred for the Trust be deducted again future income for my property this year? Not exactly. The trust will file its own tax return and will report the income/loss attributed to the beneficiaries per the trust rules. What is attributed to you will flow to your Schedule E. From there you own it and if it is a passive activity where the loss is limited - you can carry it forward and offset with future gain. The trustee will have to deal with all the paperwork. Do 1099-misc forms need to be filed for the contractors who worked to get it ready for rental? It is my understanding that since 2010 (and before 2010) landlords who are not in real-estate trade or business are not required to send out 1099. But it won't hurt if you do, also. In any case - for all of these issues you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State).\""
},
{
"docid": "105973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\""
},
{
"docid": "66626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "151338",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I was simply saying, contrary to your \"\"only a fool\"\" comment, the fact that White Supremacist groups publicly praise Trump makes it pretty easy for the common person who doesn't really follow politics to make the connection. Doesn't take a \"\"fool\"\" at all. You pretty much also just confirmed what I said by stating there are commonalities between their platforms. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. And if you're trying not to be rude in this thread, you should try harder.\""
},
{
"docid": "203934",
"title": "",
"text": "\"3 things people think about when getting a plumber: * Can they be trusted? * Are their rates affordable? * Could I just do it myself, or is it dirty & too hard? I think if you smack some item on your biz cards, marketing material, website homepage that address those 2 issues (trust & affordable) then you'll happily attract more customers. Also, a really, free fun way to market would be to have your father do some \"\"How-To\"\" videos, and put them on YouTube, and do keywords related to region. Get ultra-realistic and gritty in the video. Show how dirty it gets, and how much wrenching & special gear is needed. Talk about how much the gear costs, and the danger of a certain chemical etc. No need to worry about losing business. Anybody that has attempted plumbing knows it's damn hard. And if they don't, they will call you when they fuck it up (as I have). But in the meantime, you gain trust, and you dishearten people that thought \"\"I can fix that\"\", and then see your father sticking his arm down a toilet's asshole in the ground.\""
},
{
"docid": "534290",
"title": "",
"text": "Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.) He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level. Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax."
},
{
"docid": "345030",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations. I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site."
},
{
"docid": "37823",
"title": "",
"text": "What sort of emergency requires payment up front for which 2-3 days processing of a stock sale would pose a problem? In my case, the sudden and unexpected death of my wife. Back in 2011, my wife was struck and killed in a traffic incident. I had to immediately (not in 2 - 3 days) cover 50% of the entire costs of the funeral. The balance was due shortly after, though I now forget if the balance was due in 7 days or in 30. I suspect the latter. The life insurance paid out in approximately 4 months for this simple case. Even if your mortgage is insured, you still have to pay the entire balance, along with living expenses, until the paperwork is resolved. And, again in simple cases, assume this will take months rather than days or weeks. My point is, the funeral is only one of the expenses you'll have to cover in such a situation, though generally you'll have sufficient lead time for the other expenses, where your investments would likely be sufficiently liquid. Yes, a credit card would (and did) help in this situation, but if you have no credit card (as your question poses), you need ready access to thousands of dollars to cover this sort of eventuality. My bank told me that many people in such a situation have to take out an emergency loan the very day their spouse dies. Let me assure you this would be... emotionally difficult. Funerals vary widely in price. The Motley Fool indicates the median cost of a funeral with a vault was $8,343 in 2014. Crematory fees, a headstone, flowers, food, obituaries, all add to this cost. My total cost was closer to three times the median, though some of the expenses (headstone, primarily) came later. I'm sure I could have gone for a cheaper funeral, though it's hard to make rational economic decisions at that sort of time. I don't recall the exact amount I had to put down, but it was somewhere around $6000 - $8000. (No need to leave a comment expressing condolences; thanks, but I've already had plenty and now my goal is to help share knowledge. :) )"
},
{
"docid": "187525",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. P.S. if anyone can find this article for me I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to use my google-fu with googling terms with site:fool.com but haven't found the article I remember."
},
{
"docid": "349866",
"title": "",
"text": "In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes."
},
{
"docid": "402325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\""
},
{
"docid": "402660",
"title": "",
"text": "$42.05 was the first prospective price reported in the mainstream press, and was a number that I would think got *that* many more people to jump on the bandwagon - see the CNN link I posted. And see this, too: [*ReadWriteWeb:* Were Facebook Investors Fooling Themselves? Psychologists Say Yes - June 15, 2012](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/were-facebook-investors-fooling-themselves-psychologists-say-yes.php)"
},
{
"docid": "538086",
"title": "",
"text": "If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it."
},
{
"docid": "470725",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \"\"stock analysis\"\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\""
},
{
"docid": "502953",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Tulip mania** Tulip mania, tulipmania, or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble (or economic bubble), although some researchers have noted that the Kipper-und Wipperzeit (literally Tipper and See-saw) episode in 1619–22, a Europe-wide chain of debasement of the metal content of coins to fund warfare, featured mania-like similarities to a bubble. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a hitherto unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis (or financial crisis). And historically, it had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, the world's leading economic and financial power in the 17th century. *** **Greater fool theory** The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. In other words, one may pay a price that seems \"\"foolishly\"\" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a \"\"greater fool\"\" later. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "116867",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Perhaps just an ambiguity rather than a contradiction - You said, \"\"at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government\"\". You then later said \"\"I'm not conflating trust of the issuer with trust of the \"\"bank\"\". I don't trust either.\"\" The problem there is that, on the Bitcoin side of the fence, there's no one there *to* trust. **You** can be the bank. You can also be the issuer, with enough computing horsepower. Do you, then, not trust *yourself*? Or, did I take that entirely wrong and you meant that directed toward the fiat side of things, and don't trust that Trump won't get us into a currency war with China (or his successor finally authorize that trillion dollar platinum coin to circumvent the debt ceiling - I don't mean that to be at all partisan)?\""
},
{
"docid": "362753",
"title": "",
"text": ">you're fooling yourself if you think they don't have advantages over retail investors. Well clearly they have resources connections, more clout when speaking to their investees, etc. but what I meant is it's not as big of an advantage as most people believe it is. Also with derivatives you're right its a whole different ball game. I'm a finance student and I invest my own money to learn, and to grow my wealth slowly and intelligently. The thing is I never touch derivatives(probably because I haven't studied them much yet). Also I come from a very Benjamin Graham value investing background so that is why I think that an average investor with a retail brokerage account can beat the institutions. This energy thing is not something that I think can be capitalized upon, however."
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "565016",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "60032",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "387906",
"title": "",
"text": "I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv. The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries. For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the IRA that pass through the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish. Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year. The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year. Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax might be due. However, beneficiaries can deduct the portion of estate tax paid by the estate from the income tax that they have to pay on the IRA withdrawals. Estate planning is very tricky business, and even lawyers very competent in estate and trust issues fall far short in their understanding of tax law, especially income tax law."
},
{
"docid": "396204",
"title": "",
"text": "Hahaha, I appreciate the comparison, but that's bullshit. Truthers are putting their own paranoid theories out there, you have no obligation to seek them out and respond to them. Socialists on the other hand are offering reasoned critique of your ideas. You can dismiss their arguments out of hand, but understand that it makes you look like an intellectual coward. Cock-surety may fool weaker opponents, but even then, only in the service of your own ego."
},
{
"docid": "258077",
"title": "",
"text": "A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself."
},
{
"docid": "517723",
"title": "",
"text": "Roth IRAs divide your withdrawal into 3 categories: Contributions, Conversions, and Earnings. This is significant, because each have different tax consequences and the order of withdrawal is dictated by tax law. You can withdraw your contributions in less than 5 years for any reason (home buyer or not). You cannot withdraw your conversions or earnings without waiting 5 years unless you pay the 10% penalty. The home buyer exemption is only after the 5 years are met. Further detail found on the motley fool: home purchase exemption, distributions, early withdrawals."
},
{
"docid": "6047",
"title": "",
"text": "We have a lot of debt - at this point I don't even know how much This is your problem. Find out, and while you're at it find out how much income you have and also what your total expenditures are. You seem to be facing up to the problem, but not looking it in the eyes. You just need to take some time, and a little bravery, to get all your financial documentation together and lay it all out so you know what your situation actually is. Its not hard to do this, get a box and put all (old) bills and statements in that you can find, and at the end of a month, pick them out and write down the totals. Then work out your income and all that you've spent that month. This is known as a Statement of Affairs and there are calculators to help you. Then you can work out how much you need to pay off, and how much spare money you have to do this with. You can also start to cut down on all the really unnecessary stuff to increase your spare money that you can use to pay off the debts. Hopefully this won't take too long, and you can easily (if boringly) work the debt off over time. If it really is unsurmountable there are things you can do to help - firstly contacting your creditors and seeing what they can do to either part write off the debt, or freeze it as you pay it off (most creditors understand that if you're desperate enough to talk to them (!) then they may not see any of their debt back and are at least willing to help you pay them back). Generally though, it sounds like you are not in a total mess as you can pay it off. There are people in far worse states than you! But you really do need to be fully aware of your financial situation. Sit down and 'count your money' one lazy Sunday. There are links to help. Try the Motley Fool's guide, and its dealing with debt forum, both of which are very practical (if UK based, the Fool has a US site too, see for yourself if there's the same stuff on it, but this kind of thing tends to be fundamental to people of all nations)."
},
{
"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": "570855",
"title": "",
"text": "So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets? Good Luck."
},
{
"docid": "37823",
"title": "",
"text": "What sort of emergency requires payment up front for which 2-3 days processing of a stock sale would pose a problem? In my case, the sudden and unexpected death of my wife. Back in 2011, my wife was struck and killed in a traffic incident. I had to immediately (not in 2 - 3 days) cover 50% of the entire costs of the funeral. The balance was due shortly after, though I now forget if the balance was due in 7 days or in 30. I suspect the latter. The life insurance paid out in approximately 4 months for this simple case. Even if your mortgage is insured, you still have to pay the entire balance, along with living expenses, until the paperwork is resolved. And, again in simple cases, assume this will take months rather than days or weeks. My point is, the funeral is only one of the expenses you'll have to cover in such a situation, though generally you'll have sufficient lead time for the other expenses, where your investments would likely be sufficiently liquid. Yes, a credit card would (and did) help in this situation, but if you have no credit card (as your question poses), you need ready access to thousands of dollars to cover this sort of eventuality. My bank told me that many people in such a situation have to take out an emergency loan the very day their spouse dies. Let me assure you this would be... emotionally difficult. Funerals vary widely in price. The Motley Fool indicates the median cost of a funeral with a vault was $8,343 in 2014. Crematory fees, a headstone, flowers, food, obituaries, all add to this cost. My total cost was closer to three times the median, though some of the expenses (headstone, primarily) came later. I'm sure I could have gone for a cheaper funeral, though it's hard to make rational economic decisions at that sort of time. I don't recall the exact amount I had to put down, but it was somewhere around $6000 - $8000. (No need to leave a comment expressing condolences; thanks, but I've already had plenty and now my goal is to help share knowledge. :) )"
},
{
"docid": "178521",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \"\"sale\"\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\""
},
{
"docid": "468581",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here.."
},
{
"docid": "502953",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Tulip mania** Tulip mania, tulipmania, or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble (or economic bubble), although some researchers have noted that the Kipper-und Wipperzeit (literally Tipper and See-saw) episode in 1619–22, a Europe-wide chain of debasement of the metal content of coins to fund warfare, featured mania-like similarities to a bubble. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a hitherto unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis (or financial crisis). And historically, it had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, the world's leading economic and financial power in the 17th century. *** **Greater fool theory** The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. In other words, one may pay a price that seems \"\"foolishly\"\" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a \"\"greater fool\"\" later. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "274400",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\""
},
{
"docid": "105973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "117429",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm going to give the succinct, plain language version of the answers: 1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old You don't have much experience or history for me to base my analysis on -- how do I know I can trust you to pay back the money? 2. You have no active credit card accounts Other people haven't trusted you with credit or you haven't trusted yourself with credit and there's no active good behavior of paying credit cards on time -- you want me to be the first one to go out on a limb and loan you money? How do I know I can trust you to pay back the money?"
},
{
"docid": "289314",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of upper management, to find out how many of them actually thought the retail stores would turn around. It seems hard to believe they were deluding themselves, it seems more likely they each were trying to fool their own boss, or the shareholders, a little longer, so they could keep their jobs a bit longer, and pretending that their subordinates fooled them."
},
{
"docid": "102824",
"title": "",
"text": "Wow. Just goes to show lack of understanding or ignorance. No. America is not a country, but continents. No US is not protectionist. It is more global then ever. If you thought we are now protectionist, you were fooled by Trump. >Also I notice that in you trying to cite that graph of the top countries with Tariffs, China and the United States are still in the top 5. So what are you objecting to, that I did not include Brazil and India in my original list? It seems like Russia is the only one not on that graph. If you extended this to all countries Canada would still be in the top 10. You really fucked yourself over here. Lol. What kind of cognitive dissonance is it? Are you joking you saying 1 % tarrif is protectionism? I cant tell if it is your lack of understanding, denial, getting fooled or what. >VENEZUELA IS NOT ON THAT LIST YOU LINKED. Where did I say said it was? Edit. Nice changing the topics btw. LOL Russia. LOL. You must be one of those putin supporter"
},
{
"docid": "534290",
"title": "",
"text": "Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.) He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level. Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax."
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "522713",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button \"\"now\"\", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: \"\"What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of \"\" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\" Their reply was; \"\"Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly\"\" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "266725",
"title": "",
"text": "\"And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google \"\"broker fee comparison\"\". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares.\""
},
{
"docid": "410453",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \"\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\"\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\""
},
{
"docid": "203934",
"title": "",
"text": "\"3 things people think about when getting a plumber: * Can they be trusted? * Are their rates affordable? * Could I just do it myself, or is it dirty & too hard? I think if you smack some item on your biz cards, marketing material, website homepage that address those 2 issues (trust & affordable) then you'll happily attract more customers. Also, a really, free fun way to market would be to have your father do some \"\"How-To\"\" videos, and put them on YouTube, and do keywords related to region. Get ultra-realistic and gritty in the video. Show how dirty it gets, and how much wrenching & special gear is needed. Talk about how much the gear costs, and the danger of a certain chemical etc. No need to worry about losing business. Anybody that has attempted plumbing knows it's damn hard. And if they don't, they will call you when they fuck it up (as I have). But in the meantime, you gain trust, and you dishearten people that thought \"\"I can fix that\"\", and then see your father sticking his arm down a toilet's asshole in the ground.\""
},
{
"docid": "69968",
"title": "",
"text": "Sorry, bro(or derpina). I already have a line of awesome people I wish to God I could hire. Currently have one in line ahead that I hope I can hire to telecommute in the future. It's rough right now out there. I hope I can make money so I can give it away to those who have need. I personally have a hard time believing that unemployment is at merely 8.3% or so. That's just bunk. Democrat or Republican, you'd have to be an absolute fool to believe those numbers."
},
{
"docid": "510760",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not kidding. Maybe there is a problem there. I'm really not trying to be a jerk. My husband could use mood stabilizers. His neurologist put him on an antidepressant which helped a lot. I, of course, got yelled at for suggesting it. You absolutely raged at me right out of the gate. I'm VERY familiar with that behavior. You really should see a therapist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not backing down from my initial statement. 50% of working age men who are not in the work force are addicted to opiates. It's not because they are in pain. They would be better off smoking cannabis. Everyone is fooling themselves if they think the choice between getting high and not is simply a matter of them just quitting. If they could do that they would. At least cannabis is basically harmless and not physically addictive. Go ahead, tell me I'm an asshole again. I don't care. Trust me. I have thick skin after 22 years of abuse."
},
{
"docid": "4153",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall."
},
{
"docid": "468581",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here.."
},
{
"docid": "402660",
"title": "",
"text": "$42.05 was the first prospective price reported in the mainstream press, and was a number that I would think got *that* many more people to jump on the bandwagon - see the CNN link I posted. And see this, too: [*ReadWriteWeb:* Were Facebook Investors Fooling Themselves? Psychologists Say Yes - June 15, 2012](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/were-facebook-investors-fooling-themselves-psychologists-say-yes.php)"
},
{
"docid": "449081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From a more technical point of view, a trust is a legal relationship between 3 parties: Trusts can take many forms. People setup trusts to ensure that property is used in a specific way. Owning a home with a spouse is a form of a trust. A pension plan is a trust. Protecting land from development often involves placing it in trust. Wealthy people use trusts for estate planning for a variety of reasons. There's no \"\"better\"\" or \"\"best\"\" trust on a general level... it all depends on the situation that you are in and the desired outcome that you are looking for.\""
},
{
"docid": "431075",
"title": "",
"text": "\">\"\"There's a market here that we've been missing our entire lives,\"\" said Donald Trump, Jr. during the announcement event. A fool and their money are soon departed. They've realized there are lots of suckers they haven't screwed over yet. They're entering a market that's pretty well covered but they're banking on the blind support from 45's base. I can only wonder though, if it will be a successful venture this time.\""
},
{
"docid": "258077",
"title": "",
"text": "A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself."
},
{
"docid": "287156",
"title": "",
"text": "Both a trust and an estate are separate, legal, taxpaying entities, just like any individual. Income earned by the trust or estate property (e.g., rents collected from real estate) is income earned by the trust or the estate. Who is liable for taxes on income earned by a trust depends on who receives or retains benefits from the trust. Who is liable for taxes on income received by an estate depends on how the income is classified (i.e., income earned by the decedent, income earned by the estate, income in respect of the decedent, or income distributed to beneficiaries). Generally, trusts and estates are taxed like individuals. General tax principles that apply to individuals therefore also apply to trusts and estates. A trust or estate may earn tax−exempt income and may deduct certain expenses. Each is allowed a small exemption ($300 for a simple trust, $100 for a complex trust, $600 for an estate). However, neither is allowed a standard deduction. The tax brackets for income taxable to a trust or estate are much more compressed and can result in higher taxes than for individuals. In short, the trust should have been paying taxes on its gains all along, when the money transfers to you it will be taxed as ordinary income."
},
{
"docid": "214938",
"title": "",
"text": "\">its that people with a libertarian mindset tend to have a zealous ideology that makes it impossible to talk to them It's that people with a statist mindset tend to have a zealous ideology that makes it impossible to talk to them. >I am aware of your set of beliefs and I don't agree with them It's amazing that you can claim to be \"\"aware of [my] set of beliefs\"\" despite not asking nor being told. Are you a mind reader, or just an assumptive arrogant fool?\""
},
{
"docid": "117429",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm going to give the succinct, plain language version of the answers: 1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old You don't have much experience or history for me to base my analysis on -- how do I know I can trust you to pay back the money? 2. You have no active credit card accounts Other people haven't trusted you with credit or you haven't trusted yourself with credit and there's no active good behavior of paying credit cards on time -- you want me to be the first one to go out on a limb and loan you money? How do I know I can trust you to pay back the money?"
},
{
"docid": "301987",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's enough places that directly accept BitCoin today that, call it whatever you want, it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck. And for transfers between two people that use different native currencies, it works a hell of a lot *better* and cheaper than most existing solutions. As for \"\"growing faster\"\", in eight years Bitcoin has gone from nonexistent to the 266th biggest \"\"company\"\" (in terms of market cap) in the *world*. Though still technically smaller than them, it makes the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and Google all look like sloths by comparison. To address \"\"trust\"\" - You're conflating \"\"trust of the issuer\"\" with \"\"trust of the bag-man\"\". With USD, you need to trust the good faith of the US Treasury; while that is certainly a pretty good bet, with Bitcoin, you don't need to trust **anyone**, because there *is* no issuing authority (no, not even the core devs could magically create more bitcoins out of thin air). That's different than, for example, trusting an online wallet or exchange with it, because then you have a third party holding your assets that *can* vanish to the Caymans overnight... But that wouldn't be any less true if you trusted USD to a random guy online. All that said, I'm **still** not invested in it because, although I love me some high return high volatility, I *don't* like the high risk of governments making my assets illegal overnight (China and Russia have already done so, though *for now* it seems more a statement of official policy than a real crime they go after people for). But as a medium of exchange - You *bet* I keep a small amount in my offline wallet for convenience!\""
},
{
"docid": "402325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\""
},
{
"docid": "388575",
"title": "",
"text": "While there is no legal reason to have a minimum number of employees, there can be a practical reason. They want to look like a good solid investment so that investors will give them money, which is what an IPO is, really. Hiring lots of people is part of that. Once the investors are committed, they can cut expenses by firing people again. I have no idea how common this is, but it is a possibility. However, if it were really common, investors wouldn't be fooled anymore. Also, they risk being sued for fraud over this. Even if your friend's worry is probably unfounded, you should be aware that working for a startup is always risky. They very often go bankrupt even if they try their best. They can misjudge their intended market. They can get higher expenses than expected. There can be another company with same idea being launched at the same time. Other things can go wrong. Working for a startup is a risk, but it beats being unemployed, right?"
},
{
"docid": "345030",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations. I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site."
},
{
"docid": "539752",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am not a lawyer, and I am assuming trusts in the UK work similar to the way they work in the US... A trust is a legally recognized entity that can act in business transactions much the same way as a person would (own real property, a business, insurance, investments, etc.). The short answer is the trust is the owner of the property. The trust is established by a Grantor who \"\"funds\"\" the trust by transferring ownership of items from him or herself (or itself, if another trust or business entity like a corporation) to the trust. A Trustee is appointed (usually by the Grantor) to manage the trust according to the conditions and terms specified in the trust. A Trustee would be failing in their responsibility (their fiduciary duty) if they do not act in accordance with the purposes of the trust. (Some trusts are written better than others, and there may or may not be room for broad interpretation of the purposes of the trust.) The trust is established to provide some benefit to the Beneficiary. The beneficiary can be anyone or anything, including another trust. In the US, a living trust is commonly used as an estate planning tool, where the Grantor, Trustee, and Beneficiary are the same person(s). At some point, due to health or other reasons, a new trustee can be appointed. Since the trust is a separate entity from the grantor and trustee, and it owns the assets, it can survive the death of the grantor, which makes it an attractive way to avoid having to probate the entire estate. A good living trust will have instructions for the Trustee on what to do with the assets upon the death of the Grantor(s).\""
}
] |
3683 | Can I trust the Motley Fool? | [
{
"docid": "105973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "37823",
"title": "",
"text": "What sort of emergency requires payment up front for which 2-3 days processing of a stock sale would pose a problem? In my case, the sudden and unexpected death of my wife. Back in 2011, my wife was struck and killed in a traffic incident. I had to immediately (not in 2 - 3 days) cover 50% of the entire costs of the funeral. The balance was due shortly after, though I now forget if the balance was due in 7 days or in 30. I suspect the latter. The life insurance paid out in approximately 4 months for this simple case. Even if your mortgage is insured, you still have to pay the entire balance, along with living expenses, until the paperwork is resolved. And, again in simple cases, assume this will take months rather than days or weeks. My point is, the funeral is only one of the expenses you'll have to cover in such a situation, though generally you'll have sufficient lead time for the other expenses, where your investments would likely be sufficiently liquid. Yes, a credit card would (and did) help in this situation, but if you have no credit card (as your question poses), you need ready access to thousands of dollars to cover this sort of eventuality. My bank told me that many people in such a situation have to take out an emergency loan the very day their spouse dies. Let me assure you this would be... emotionally difficult. Funerals vary widely in price. The Motley Fool indicates the median cost of a funeral with a vault was $8,343 in 2014. Crematory fees, a headstone, flowers, food, obituaries, all add to this cost. My total cost was closer to three times the median, though some of the expenses (headstone, primarily) came later. I'm sure I could have gone for a cheaper funeral, though it's hard to make rational economic decisions at that sort of time. I don't recall the exact amount I had to put down, but it was somewhere around $6000 - $8000. (No need to leave a comment expressing condolences; thanks, but I've already had plenty and now my goal is to help share knowledge. :) )"
},
{
"docid": "133908",
"title": "",
"text": "Hahaha, I appreciate the comparison, but that's bullshit. Socialists are putting their own paranoid theories out there, you have no obligation to seek them out and respond to them. Truthers on the other hand are offering reasoned critique of your ideas. You can dismiss their arguments out of hand, but understand that it makes you look like an intellectual coward. Cock-surety may fool weaker opponents, but even then, only in the service of your own ego."
},
{
"docid": "402325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "560395",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works. For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices). Hope that helps."
},
{
"docid": "362753",
"title": "",
"text": ">you're fooling yourself if you think they don't have advantages over retail investors. Well clearly they have resources connections, more clout when speaking to their investees, etc. but what I meant is it's not as big of an advantage as most people believe it is. Also with derivatives you're right its a whole different ball game. I'm a finance student and I invest my own money to learn, and to grow my wealth slowly and intelligently. The thing is I never touch derivatives(probably because I haven't studied them much yet). Also I come from a very Benjamin Graham value investing background so that is why I think that an average investor with a retail brokerage account can beat the institutions. This energy thing is not something that I think can be capitalized upon, however."
},
{
"docid": "155677",
"title": "",
"text": "That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club."
},
{
"docid": "468581",
"title": "",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here.."
},
{
"docid": "340607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\""
},
{
"docid": "89403",
"title": "",
"text": "Apparently it is up to the credit card company on how they want to report your available balance. Another disadvantage to the no-limit credit card may not be apparent to most people, but it is something noted by organizations like The Motley Fool, which is expert in many issues of finance and investment. Part of your credit score, about 30%, considers the amount of money you have borrowed, and the limit on your present credit cards. A no-limit credit card company may report your limit as $0 if you have not used the card, or they may report a maximum limit available to you. They may not, nor are they obligated, to report times when you put tons of expenses on a credit card and then paid them off. While some companies will report your timely payments and paid off amounts, others simply report an extremely low limit. For instance if you spent $100 US Dollars (USD), your limit might be considered $100 USD, or it may merely be reported as zero. You’ll need to check with a credit card company on how they report payments and limits on a no-limit credit card before you obtain one. Some people who are scrupulous are paying off their cards at the end of each month suffer major losses to their credit score, without even realizing it, if their spending ability is rated at zero, or their payments don’t count toward showing credit worthiness. Source"
},
{
"docid": "162618",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think you can really classify it as front running. Technically, the only information, that the alleged front runner in this case has over the followers is the knowledge of the trade itself. Knowledge of the trade may indeed be share price sensitive information (for some high volume traders or those respected and with many followers) but it's not really like they can't know about it before everyone else; parity isn't possible in this case. If an company/organisation (i.e. the social trading platform say) responsible for disseminating the details/log of a trader to a following (or individuals working for said company/organisation), were to act on the trading data before dissemination then THEY would be guilty of front running. The alleged front runner may profit from the following of course, but that's only really occurring due to the publication of information that is share price sensitive, and such information generally has to be published by law (if it is by law so classified) so it's difficult to find too much fault. There has to be a certain amount of consideration on the part of any trader as to who is more the fool, the fool or the fool that follows them?"
},
{
"docid": "370760",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up? \"\"But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more\"\" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market. To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says \"\"Hey buy these paper clips for $10\"\". But those paper clips aren't worth that. \"\"It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15\"\". But why would they pay that? \"\"Because some fool after him will pay $20\"\" Ha Ha!\""
},
{
"docid": "474296",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\""
},
{
"docid": "431075",
"title": "",
"text": "\">\"\"There's a market here that we've been missing our entire lives,\"\" said Donald Trump, Jr. during the announcement event. A fool and their money are soon departed. They've realized there are lots of suckers they haven't screwed over yet. They're entering a market that's pretty well covered but they're banking on the blind support from 45's base. I can only wonder though, if it will be a successful venture this time.\""
},
{
"docid": "147251",
"title": "",
"text": "Can anyone suggest all type of investments in India which are recession proof? There are no such investments. Quite a few think bullions like Gold tend to go up during recession, which is true to an extent; however there are enough articles that show it is not necessarily true. There are no fool proof investments. The only fool proof way is to mitigate risks. Have a diversified portfolio that has Debt [Fixed Deposits, Bonds] and equity [Stocks], Bullion [Gold], etc. And stay invested for long as the effects tend to cancel out in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "136460",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I know some CEOs (for both big and small companies). A few have admitted to me on a few occasions they themselves don't have the slightest idea about being a CEO. The world changes too fast so they have absolutely no idea what's going to work and what isn't when it comes time to make decisions. All they can do is rely on the recommendations of the people that work under them at which point it becomes a matter of trust: Do you trust the recommendations from your CTO? Who did he trust to make that recommendation? The trust chain goes waaay down and it makes you wonder if the people who \"\"know\"\" (at the end of the chain) shouldn't have been able to just make the decision themselves.\""
},
{
"docid": "60032",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "301987",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's enough places that directly accept BitCoin today that, call it whatever you want, it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck. And for transfers between two people that use different native currencies, it works a hell of a lot *better* and cheaper than most existing solutions. As for \"\"growing faster\"\", in eight years Bitcoin has gone from nonexistent to the 266th biggest \"\"company\"\" (in terms of market cap) in the *world*. Though still technically smaller than them, it makes the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and Google all look like sloths by comparison. To address \"\"trust\"\" - You're conflating \"\"trust of the issuer\"\" with \"\"trust of the bag-man\"\". With USD, you need to trust the good faith of the US Treasury; while that is certainly a pretty good bet, with Bitcoin, you don't need to trust **anyone**, because there *is* no issuing authority (no, not even the core devs could magically create more bitcoins out of thin air). That's different than, for example, trusting an online wallet or exchange with it, because then you have a third party holding your assets that *can* vanish to the Caymans overnight... But that wouldn't be any less true if you trusted USD to a random guy online. All that said, I'm **still** not invested in it because, although I love me some high return high volatility, I *don't* like the high risk of governments making my assets illegal overnight (China and Russia have already done so, though *for now* it seems more a statement of official policy than a real crime they go after people for). But as a medium of exchange - You *bet* I keep a small amount in my offline wallet for convenience!\""
}
] |
3694 | Has anyone created a documentary about folks who fail to save enough for retirement? | [
{
"docid": "282442",
"title": "",
"text": "To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points. I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling). This takes time, not money. If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money."
}
] | [
{
"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": "11274",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am in a similar situation and have recently found a planner who says a pension that pays $100/month is worth $18k in savings at retirement. I know that doesn't answer your question directly, but could could use a simple interest savings calculator (bank rate has one) to see how much of your income you would need to save over x period of time and deduct that from you the offer at your prospective employer to compare \"\"apples to apples\"\" However, I actually think the value of a pension at retirement is greater than listed above. To illustrate: So in this example my pension would seem to be valued at about $14,000 in salary for those 10 years.\""
},
{
"docid": "387937",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Opportunities are not equal But the OP and most of the \"\"it's all about luck\"\" folks here *are* saying opportunities are equal - if it's only about luck, then *anyone* can find that lucky penny. Remember - that's the assertion here - that there are tons of people who could be billionaires; the ones who are only got there because *they* were the ones that someone whispered \"\"plastics\"\" to at a party. Total egalitarianism; no meritocracy or plutocracy whatsoever. It's all about the spin of the wheel, man. Anyone can win the lottery.\""
},
{
"docid": "178303",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\""
},
{
"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": "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": "233781",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\""
},
{
"docid": "285147",
"title": "",
"text": "Robert Kiyosaki repeatedly stressed that starting your own business is risk free and the easiest way to get rich, yet he's never done it - and has actually failed in business 3 times. He won't release his real estate investment history or his stock market investments. After failing many times he had no money until he joined network marketing groups to sell these books, he has made his money from his courses and books and has probably lost money from actual investments - I say this because most of his property investments were bought when market prices were very high. He's also stated that he essentially speculates on stock prices, when his broker phones him with the idea that a stock is about to go up he will shift lots of money into those stocks. If you'd like to read more, this exposes everything about him: [http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides) [Wall street journal article about him and Donald Trump.](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116052181216688592.html?mod=money_page_left_hs) [Another video about 'get rich quick real estate gurus' ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2KMUvqRIM&feature=player_embedded) This is turning into a cult following with people spending thousands on credit cards to go to these courses and receive this poor advice, please watch this BBC documentary to see the way people are acting about this 'get rich quick real estate' scheme: [BBC Iplayer link](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017xgn6/Money_Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire/)"
},
{
"docid": "408124",
"title": "",
"text": "When you start at a new job here in the U.S., the default means of payment is usually a paper check. Most folks will quickly set up direct deposit so that their employer deposits their paycheck directly into their personal bank account - the incentive to do so is that you receive your funds faster than if you deposit a paper check. Even if you set up direct deposit on your first day on the job, you may still receive your first paycheck as a paper check simply because the wheels of payroll processing turn slowly at some (large) companies. A counter example is a self-employed contractor - perhaps a carpenter or house painter. These folks are paid by their customers, homeowners and such. Many larger, well established contracters now accept credit card payments from customers, but smaller independents may be reluctant to set up a credit card merchant account to accept payment by card because of all the fees that are associated with accepting credit card payments. 3% transaction fees and monthly service fees can be scary to any businessman who already has very thin profit margins. In such cases, these contractors prefer to be paid by check or in cash for the simple reason that there are no fees deducted from cash payments. There are a few folks here who don't trust direct deposit, or more specifically, don't trust their employer to perform the deposit correctly and on time. Some feel uncomfortable giving their bank info to their employer, fearing someone at the company could steal money from their account. In my experience, the folks who prefer a paper paycheck are often the same folks who rush to the bank on payday to redeem their paychecks for cash. They may have a bank account (helps with check cashing) but they prefer to carry cash. I operate in a manner similar to you - I use a debit card or credit card (I only have one of each) for nearly all transactions in daily life, I use electronic payments through my bank to pay my regular bills and mortgage, and I receive my paycheck by direct deposit. There have been periods where I haven't written or received paper checks for so long that I have to hunt for where I put my checkbook! Even though I use a debit card for most store purchases, the bank account behind that debit card is actually a checking account according to the bank. Again, the system defaults to paper checks and you have the option of going electronic as well. Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day laborer who expect to work for a different person each day or week. I don't think this is all that unique to the US. There are people in every city and country who don't have long-term employment with a single employer and therefore prefer cash or paper check over electronic payments. I'd be willing to bet that this applies to the majority of people on the planet, actually."
},
{
"docid": "217427",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""
},
{
"docid": "69353",
"title": "",
"text": "Before I answer, you should know a few things about me. I've paid to get into a couple of Network-Marketing/Multi-Level-Marketing franchises, and I made a little money in it. I have worked in financial services sales. I later went on to get my Masters in Business Administration. I've been there, and I know MLMs and Business in theory and practice. There's room for some nuance here, but for the most part: Don't do it! There's no snake oil out there that people can't get on their own. If you can sell it to them, then here's the simple case against it: if you're a good enough salesman to get other people to buy products or franchises from you (and really, you don't care about product sales, you care about franchise sales, because that's how they sold it to you, right?) you can make far more money selling business to business. If you're a good enough sales manager that you can get good salespeople to buy franchises from you and sell more franchises, you'll make far more money managing salespeople selling business to business. For the most part, people aren't good at sales, and that likely includes you. Most MLM's are sales groups with bad salespeople leading bad salespeople. It's the blind leading the blind. And as your friends get burned, and your family gets burned, and you start losing everyone who got burned, you'll start to wish you had never done this stuff in the first place. The main reason the above holds true is that the people involved in MLM don't really create any value. They're looking to get a free ride on everyone else in the pyramid beneath them. There are exceptions, the main ones that come to mind are like Mary Kay, where, ok, mostly women, makeup artists teach women how to apply makeup without looking like a clown, and it's a skill, and it's part of how they create value. And it may well be the best option for someone whose chosen career is a makeup artist. I'm not particularly an exception, but at the age of 17, I sold books door-to-door in Southern Mississippi, mostly to teach myself how to talk to people, since I had grown up with my nose in a book. It turned out that the business was structured like a MLM to encourage the salespeople to become managers, but I had no interest in that, I just wanted to learn people skills. I also blew a couple hundred bucks on franchise fees on other MLMs, mostly because friends were in it - never did I see that money ever again. Sales is hard work. Teaching people how to sell is even harder, and impossible if you don't know how. If you're good at it, you'll do so much better in a business to business setting. Think about the economics of it. Salespeople get paid on volume of sales. Businesses have a lot more money than consumers. You have to sell to an awful lot more consumers than businesses to make the same amount of money. Think about competition, too. Considering Amway? You're competing with everyone from Walmart to the corner convenience store, and you will be asking everyone and their brother to join up. And many of them have already been pitched it, if they've been around long enough. The bargaining strength of your customers (they have lots of alternatives) and suppliers (their over-priced pricing structure is set in stone) is pretty strong. You have immense direct competition and product substitutes, and anyone else can go into the same business as you. Your competitive position is extremely weak. It's almost guaranteed to fail. You probably don't have the skills, you'll burn your relationships, and you'll make more money doing almost anything else."
},
{
"docid": "175983",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course they would have failed. Every big bank would have failed in 2008 if the Fed didn't step in. Jamie is good at spin and you're good at catching his talking points. The 13 billion was only partially about Bear (a small part). If it was all Bear you can bet Dimon would have been telling that to anyone who would listen."
},
{
"docid": "20341",
"title": "",
"text": "Ok, so let's just think about the IQ curve for a minute. We know that over 50% of the population has lower than average IQ. We know that toward the lower end of the curve, people are really dumb. Some of these on the very low end have federal assistance due to their handicap. It is not politically correct to call them retards because they are a natural product of nature special ed instructors say. So, let's play the banking game. Pull up a list of all of the customers activity and graph out the frequency of those who overdraft. Hey, would you look at that, there is a curve and some of these people are overdrawing a lot more than others. Most customers overdraft rarely or not at all, but there are a few who do it all the time. These are the retards and the banks prey on them. These are the same folks who get 50% interest pay-day loans. Never-mind the fact that banks have been given money by FED. Never-mind that they can park their money overnight and earn great rates for free. Never mind that the US government, soon to be replicated by governments all over the world, has stolen tax dollars from the population at large and given it to these banks without a moment of hesitation because they are too big to fail. No, the problem is that these retards cannot balance their checkbook, therefore, it is their own damn fault. And for those who prey on the weaker, the down-trodden, the mentally challenged. Good for them! If you're too stupid to balance your account, then you deserve to be raped by big banks and the governments who are in bed with them. Now, get on the other side of the IQ curve you fucking retards!"
},
{
"docid": "284492",
"title": "",
"text": "I feel like the author doesn't have a clear message. On the one hand he is saying that Robinhood users should be long-term passive investors, the he turns around and criticizes it for not completing trades fast enough and having too much slippage. I think that we need to be very specific about our goals. If the goal is to make as much money as possible, sure, Robinhood is a poor tool. However, the vast majority of people are only at the point that they need to save more. If then our goal is to get more people to save more then it is a great tool. It lowers barriors and makes it fun. More importantly, the limits of Robinhood are obvious to anyone who starts to take the next step and increase their gains."
},
{
"docid": "563326",
"title": "",
"text": "The two are closely related. A budget is a detailed plan for how to spend. Expense tracking is a tool to analyze your previous spending performance. Creating a plan for how to spend your money without any record of your previous spending--is an empty promise to yourself that you will never follow up on. Did I stay within my budget? Doesn't matter, I didn't track the spending anyway. Even if you do plan to track your performance, if you have not previously done so, you won't have a good basis for how much to expect in each category. Most people have a general idea of how much they have spent and many budgets are formed based on that general intuition, but they are often surprised when they track how every penny is spent and look at the totals from month to month and over years. By actually seeing how much has been spent it's easier to pick the big financial drains and target them for reduction, if your desire is more savings, for example. I know people who keep a close eye on what they spend each month, but they don't allocate money in categories for the next month. They don't perform as well on reducing spending, but they often don't care. They feel like they make enough and they save enough, so why worry? I also know people who create an unrealistic budget each month because they haven't done a good job tracking their previous spending. They know what the monthly bills are, but they don't account well for variable or cyclical expenses like repairs, Christmas, etc. Both tools are essential for maximizing your own personal finance."
},
{
"docid": "380773",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "444148",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings."
},
{
"docid": "276560",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\""
},
{
"docid": "464356",
"title": "",
"text": "Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough. Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true. Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay. Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source. Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement. In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs. If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal. A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs. See for example here. This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month. France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car. As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity. This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one."
}
] |
3694 | Has anyone created a documentary about folks who fail to save enough for retirement? | [
{
"docid": "204747",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "464356",
"title": "",
"text": "Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough. Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true. Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay. Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source. Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement. In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs. If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal. A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs. See for example here. This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month. France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car. As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity. This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one."
},
{
"docid": "444148",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings."
},
{
"docid": "132361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've \"\"won the game\"\" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of \"\"comfortably\"\" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. \"\"Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?\"\"), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to \"\"leave a legacy\"\" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a \"\"dream\"\" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your \"\"needs\"\" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask \"\"if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative\"\", but of course if it's \"\"too conservative\"\" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's \"\"conservative enough\"\". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so.\""
},
{
"docid": "380773",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\""
},
{
"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": "107520",
"title": "",
"text": "Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)"
},
{
"docid": "284492",
"title": "",
"text": "I feel like the author doesn't have a clear message. On the one hand he is saying that Robinhood users should be long-term passive investors, the he turns around and criticizes it for not completing trades fast enough and having too much slippage. I think that we need to be very specific about our goals. If the goal is to make as much money as possible, sure, Robinhood is a poor tool. However, the vast majority of people are only at the point that they need to save more. If then our goal is to get more people to save more then it is a great tool. It lowers barriors and makes it fun. More importantly, the limits of Robinhood are obvious to anyone who starts to take the next step and increase their gains."
},
{
"docid": "20341",
"title": "",
"text": "Ok, so let's just think about the IQ curve for a minute. We know that over 50% of the population has lower than average IQ. We know that toward the lower end of the curve, people are really dumb. Some of these on the very low end have federal assistance due to their handicap. It is not politically correct to call them retards because they are a natural product of nature special ed instructors say. So, let's play the banking game. Pull up a list of all of the customers activity and graph out the frequency of those who overdraft. Hey, would you look at that, there is a curve and some of these people are overdrawing a lot more than others. Most customers overdraft rarely or not at all, but there are a few who do it all the time. These are the retards and the banks prey on them. These are the same folks who get 50% interest pay-day loans. Never-mind the fact that banks have been given money by FED. Never-mind that they can park their money overnight and earn great rates for free. Never mind that the US government, soon to be replicated by governments all over the world, has stolen tax dollars from the population at large and given it to these banks without a moment of hesitation because they are too big to fail. No, the problem is that these retards cannot balance their checkbook, therefore, it is their own damn fault. And for those who prey on the weaker, the down-trodden, the mentally challenged. Good for them! If you're too stupid to balance your account, then you deserve to be raped by big banks and the governments who are in bed with them. Now, get on the other side of the IQ curve you fucking retards!"
},
{
"docid": "167363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I agree that real income growth has been flat twenty years, but you're wrong about Americans owning stocks. Anyone who has a pension is directly involved in \"\"gambling\"\" on the stock market. Check out /r/personalfinance -- there are lots of people who invest/save money, but don't earn a lot. There are options that are as cheap as $25/pay...It gives you a way to invest when you are young. I have paid into a mutual fund/etfs since 21...wish I had done it sooner!\""
},
{
"docid": "242237",
"title": "",
"text": "This is true, but I also want to point out that this isn't just an average CEO, they had a documentary made about this guy since he was the very *definition* of American excess. For those who are curious, [This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqDreqlPe98) is the documentary."
},
{
"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": "502221",
"title": "",
"text": "> Are you worried at all about the $5 trillion in bonds held by the FED? I'm not, no. It's just been an asset swap. In place of $5tn worth of bonds that the non-government used to hold, we're now holding $5tn worth of reserves. Now whether you have $1mn worth of bonds, or $1mn in your bank, your net financial position is the same. You can buy a $1mn yacht just as easily either way, for bonds are one of the most liquid assets in existence. So why should swapping bonds for reserves, slightly more liquid but of the same value, be of concern to anyone? Who cares if our asset makeup has shifted from T-Bills that trade for their face value to Federal Reserve Notes that trade for their face value? >Is there any precedent for a country canceling that amount of debt ever and kept reserve currency status? Firstly, I don't understand this obsession with being the primary reserve currency. New Zealand/Australia/Canada/UK - these countries all manage just fine without it. Secondly, as the world's largest economy and with 200mn+ taxpayers all seeking out USD and heaps of very desirable exports and USD-denominated assets, the USD is always going to be highly sought-after and a pillar-stone of any assortment of reserves. > I was just watching a documentary about WWI and Keynes said at the outset the war would have to stop after a few months because each side would run out of money. Governments of the day simply [ceased convertibility to gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I), because guess what - whilst a country can run out of gold (and gold-convertible money), it can never run out of its own free floating currency. Again, just look at Japan - if it were possible, they would have eons ago."
},
{
"docid": "342210",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you have any other debt besides your mortgage such as credit card debt, student loans, or a car payment? Unless those are lower interest than your mortgage, pay them off first. There are a lot of other considerations besides just mortgage and emergency fund. Do you have some money for the things in life that happen - car repairs, unexpected medical bills, your next vehicle purchase, and the eventual replacing of those big ticket items in your home that will break eventually? A bit of savings towards each of those each month is not a bad idea. Then there is your retirement. Are you on track to make enough to support yourself in retirement plus pay for the cost of health care as it applies in your country (more in some countries, less in others)? There is also the cost of higher education for your children if you have any or are planning on having any. If so, were you planning on contributing to their higher eduction? Do you have a savings plan in place for that? Paying off the house is a great thing to do - in my mind it's great even if it reduces your mortgage deduction, although others disagree. It's just not the number one financial priority anyone should have."
},
{
"docid": "334914",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. Anyone who hadn't yet transferred their retirement savings from any direct market funds got totally Effed in the A. Granted, some of this happened because people were simply banking on continual market rise. But a lot of these people simply got really bad advice from financial planners who looked and seemed totally qualified to advise, just as a lot of people got reassured from qualified sources that their adjustable rate mortgage on their million dollar home would be *no problem.*"
},
{
"docid": "276560",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\""
},
{
"docid": "157234",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I wouldn't go quite that far. It's dreadfully formatted, and not brilliantly written, I'll give you that. I'd guess it's written by someone who believes they they have a flair for storytelling and the dramatic, and writes as they would talk. Assume Amy Hoy is a slightly melodramatic awkward gal soliloquizing at you, and this all seems a little more tolerable. But I find her points somewhat solid. I think she's presenting from a ideological standpoint where safety and security are paramount, and the risk associated with startups is \"\"too much risk.\"\" But I think the point thats he's making about the poisonous rhetoric associated with \"\"glorious death\"\" and \"\"working for a startup\"\" being very similar is well thought out and quite an interesting perspective. I go to a school whose idea of \"\"business\"\" is \"\"entrepreneurship.\"\" I left their business program because my career goals simply cannot be sustained by entrepreneurship until a very long while into my career, and I found the \"\"here's how to have a startup\"\" focus of the bulk of the courses essentially valueless to me where I am now. Having seen what the author refers to as the \"\"hagiography\"\" of successful startups (great word, by-the-by), I cannot help but recount those courses and the ways we were sold on this ideology. Much was made about how much money was made by successful startups. Much was made of the independence, the power, the *glory*, of winning the startup lotto and making it big. The guys that did it young were revered and lauded as the greatest of our generation. No mention was made of the failures. No mention was made of the failure rate. No mention was made of the costs associated with failure. No mention was made of the people who got fucked as these entrepreneurial saints made their fortunes. Further, the ones that got the most attention were the ones who went back and did it a few more times. Anyone clever, who won big and cashed out and quit while ahead was mentioned as a success, but their retirement or cashing out went unmentioned. Some sort of shameful detail, maybe. The guys that won big and went back and tried again were praised for their determination and vigor. If they set themselves back to square one betting on an unsuccessful attempt, that was unmentioned. VCs were praised as the greatest thing that happened to entrepreneurship. We were given no real warnings about \"\"hey, those contracts can be kinda shady sometimes\"\" or \"\"they want a *big* cut, yo.\"\" Instead, they were the grease to our machine. It was a money making machine. A machine of winners. Of the great men and women of our generation. Of everything that is good about western society. And we are letting our generation down if we don't play. Seriously. I had a prof tear a strip off a kid for asking something along the lines of \"\"but what's wrong with working for a company that already exists and can pay a steady wage?\"\" The prof got started in on how our generation is listless coasters and just fall into things and accomplish little on our own. He moved into how it's merely riding someone else's coattails and it's not really achieving anything for yourself. The tl;dr of what was a fifteen minute in-class excoriation of a student who asked what I thought was a reasonable question was \"\"If you're not signing your own paycheques, you are a huge failure and are contributing nothing of note to society or it's progress.\"\" This particular rant pretty much sealed my withdrawal from the business aspect of my school. If my very goals render me a huge failure in my profs' eyes, I'm not interested in what they have to say or in contributing to their employment at the university. But off that somewhat-personal tangent, the culture of \"\"glory of the startup\"\" that Amy Hoy somewhat ineloquently complains about in her article certainly exists. In the form she's complaining about. Your rebuttal makes sense too - it's not that VC are or aren't a risk, it's not that people don't have the right and the opportunity to take that risk if they see it as a valid opportunity to make money, it's not like it's fair to expect a VC to fund you without seeing a profit in the long run. But you're rebutting her thesis with something that doesn't actually address it. The culture that she's complaining about exists, in my experience. The culture glosses over so much of what you rebutted her article with, that risks exist and that failures exist and that there are a lot of harsh realities associated with the startup world. The culture does, indeed, glorify all the best parts of startup-dom and creates a toughness challenge that renders \"\"no, this may not be a good idea\"\" unfalsifiable because failure are personal while successes are cultural. Successful startups and people who have done very well by them are held up as everything startups are supposed to be and look at how their hard work paid off - and if yours doesn't work, it is entirely that you didn't work hard enough. Someone who has bought in wholesale holds that there are no \"\"bad\"\" startups - any startup can be successful, you just need to bust balls working harder if you fail. Startups are akin to gambling. They're not the roulette of \"\"it's all luck,\"\" but closer to five card stud - skill plays a lot of a role, but there's still luck involved. Startup culture represents all this as far closer to Texas Hold 'Em, where luck in minimized, where skill and diligence play the greatest role. It assumes that everyone going in already knows all the things you brought up in your rebuttal, without ever actually giving them that information. It keeps pimping \"\"just work harder\"\" without really saying \"\"Hey, guys - check the odds you're playing with **and know when to hold and when to fold**.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "231098",
"title": "",
"text": "* In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were pinstriped brokers who took orders over the phone from people who wanted to buy and sell. They had a huge competitive advantage over the rest of the market due to the lack of transparency in the market's order book. Therefore you got screwed every time you wanted to trade, ie the markets were less efficient because transaction cost was high. Transaction cost is = bid-ask spread + how much you get screwed by the market insiders. * In the 90's and early 00's there were automated trading systems that allowed people to conduct trades directly with computers, aka Algorithmic Trading. The markets were more efficient, because spreads became tighter as more people were able to enter the market on this platform (e.g. [Lightspeed](http://lightspeed.com)). The ability for market insiders to screw the general market was lessened because the exclusive access to the market's order book was eroded. Of course some Algorithmic Trading operations had a huge competitive advantage because they had great systems and great people. However it wasn't talked about because those who new about it were making a killing and keeping their mouths shut. * Then in the mid to late 00's there was co-located algorithmic trading on very fast systems, aka HFT, a natural evolution of Algorithmic Trading. Now market insiders (= people with enough resources to field co-located machines and the the engineer/traders to manage them) expanded their competitive advantage by discovering the market's order book (as they are able to see orders in a fraction of a second and then act on those orders). However to retract this natural efficiency in the markets you would need to create some kind of set of rules to even out the playing field. How can that be done? ** Option 1) Transaction tax would just make the markets less efficient by increasing the cost of buying and selling. A generally bad thing because it discourages traders (to put money into stocks), which is of course how the capital markets are supported. ** Option 2) Create rules to ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time and then permit anyone to use whatever technology they want to act on that information, so that the most efficient trading operations win. ** Option 3) Create some artificial environment where no-one is allowed to have an advantage: ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time, ensure everyone has the same technology, and ensure that the people who manage the systems have the exact same experience and intelligence etc... Of course #2 is how it works, and it is the meritocratic basis which underpins Capitalism. I don't see why people have a problem with it."
},
{
"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": "192652",
"title": "",
"text": "If you spent your whole life earning the same portfolio that amounts $20,000, the variance and volatility of watching your life savings drop to $10,000 overnight has a greater consequence than for someone who is young. This is why riskier portfolios aren't advised for older people closer to or within retirement age, the obvious complementary group being younger people who could lose more with lesser permanent consequence. Your high risk investment choices have nothing to do with your ability to manage other people's money, unless you fail to make a noteworthy investment return, then your high risk approach will be the death knell to your fund managing aspirations."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "302512",
"title": "",
"text": "To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "264023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\""
},
{
"docid": "345199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\""
},
{
"docid": "3104",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "53028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\""
},
{
"docid": "270818",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\""
},
{
"docid": "204992",
"title": "",
"text": "You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else."
},
{
"docid": "244412",
"title": "",
"text": "My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans."
},
{
"docid": "140349",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on."
},
{
"docid": "24404",
"title": "",
"text": "For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way."
},
{
"docid": "424841",
"title": "",
"text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "113881",
"title": "",
"text": "Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids."
},
{
"docid": "227906",
"title": "",
"text": "When you withdraw from your RRSP, you lose that contribution room and you will never get it back. Let's say you have room to contribute a total of $50,000 to RRSPs. If you withdraw $5000 from one institution and deposit it in another, you will now have a total contribution room of $45,000. This will only matter to you if you hope to max out your RRSP contributions sometime in your life, of course, but almost everyone should be aiming for this. Otherwise, you are correct. Your extra income will be mitigated by your immediate recontribution to your RRSP. Note that there are two circumstances where withdrawing from your RRSP does not reduce your contribution limit. The home-buyers plan lets you withdraw up to $25,000 to buy a home. You have to repay this over no more than 15 years. The second is the Lifelong Learning Plan, which lets you withdraw up to $20,000 (up to $10,000 annually), to be repaid over a 10-year period. Any other withdrawals (or failure to repay under the HBP or LLP) will lower your RRSP contribution room. In summary, it's almost certainly worth paying the $125 fee unless you are certain you will not be maxing out your RRSP contributions in your lifetime."
},
{
"docid": "162745",
"title": "",
"text": "Some have suggested you can put the money in the 401k then take a loan to pay off the student loan debt. Some things to consider before doing that: Check your 401k plan first. Some plans allow you to continue paying on a loan if you leave the company, some do not. If you have to change jobs before you pay back the 401k loan, you may only have 90 days to completely pay the loan or the IRS will treat this as an early withdrawal, which means taxes and penalties. If you don't have another job lined up, this is going to make things much worse since you will have lost your income and may owe even more to the government (depending on your state, it may be up to 50% of the remaining amount). There are ways to work with some student debt loans to defer or adjust payments. There is no such option with a 401k plan. This may change your taxes at the end of the year. Most people can deduct student loan interest payments. You cannot deduct interest paid to your 401k loan. You are paying the interest to yourself though. It may hurt your long term growth potential. Currently loans on 401k loans are in the 4% range. If you are able to make more than 4% inside of your 401k, you will be losing out on that growth since that money will only be earning the interest you pay back. It may limit flexibility for a few years. When people fall on hard times, their 401k is their last resort. Some plans have a limit on the number of loans you can have at one time. You may need a loan or a withdrawal in the future. Once you take the money out for a loan, you can't access it again. See the first bullet about working with student loan vendors, they typically have ways to work with you under hard circumstances. 401k loans don't. Amortization schedule. Many 401k loans can only be amortized for a max of 5 years, if you currently have 10 year loans, can you afford to pay the same debt back in 1/2 the time at a lower rate? You will have to do the math. When considering debt other than student loans (such as credit cards), if you fall on hard times, you can always negotiate to reduce the amount you owe, or the debt can be discharged (with tax penalties of course). They can't make you take money out. Once it is out, it is fair game. Just to clarify, the above isn't saying you shouldn't do it under any circumstances, it is a few things you need to evaluate before making that choice. The 401k is supposed to be used to help secure your financial future when you can't work. The numbers may work out in the short term, but do they still work out in the long term? Most credit cards require minimum payments high enough to pay back in 7-10 years, so does shortening that to 5 (or less) make up for the (probably early) years of compounding interest for your retirement? I think others have addressed some of this so I won't do the math. I can tell you that I have a 401k loan, and when things got iffy at my job for, it was a very bad feeling to have that over my head because, unlike other debts, there isn't much you can do about it."
},
{
"docid": "290322",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth."
},
{
"docid": "135790",
"title": "",
"text": "With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard. The reason is the sheer opportunity of it. As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound! It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up. Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that. After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them. Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money. 401K money is untouchable. No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy. As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary? I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment. Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?"
},
{
"docid": "396257",
"title": "",
"text": "All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "433371",
"title": "",
"text": "BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "411354",
"title": "",
"text": "If you leave your job with money that you contributed to the 401K, the company will have a policy about whether you can leave the money in the 401K or whether you must take it with you. I have normally seen that if it is a small amount, then it must be taken and if it is over a certain amount (maybe $10K) then you have the option of leaving it in the account or taking it out. If you take it out, then you should contact a brokerage first and get instructions from them for how to have it transferred into a rollover account to avoid having to pay tax. If the company makes the check out to you or transfers money into a non-retirement account, then they will very easily cause a taxable event and they will likely withhold tax from the payment. If you leave the money in the 401K after you leave, you will generally have fewer investment choices, higher fees, and you may have higher risks. Occasionally companies in hard times fraudulently raid their 401K accounts and when this happens it can be very difficult to get it back. (For examples see the Dept Of Labor page at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/criminal/main.html and look for 401k or retirement in titles). As far as having the money invested for several years, that time can be your friend if you get a reasonable rate of return. Over 30 years your money should be able to double multiple times. (At 8% return it will take less than 10 years to double the money. [see http://buyupside.com/calculators/doublemoneyfeb08.htm])"
},
{
"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."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "273497",
"title": "",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "7904",
"title": "",
"text": "I see a lot of comments on reddit from people about how they just bought a house. A lot of people still have a post 2008 bust mindset about the world, ideas such as house values always rise, an education is always worth it, always max out your 401k, etc."
},
{
"docid": "366307",
"title": "",
"text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month."
},
{
"docid": "590833",
"title": "",
"text": "From what I understand (I never had an RESP but would consider one for a future child), with the right type of withdrawal, you can use the RESP money for anything education related. Basically, know that the RESP is considered to have three compartments within it: (1) your contributions, (2) contributions from the government through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG), and (3) the return on the investment, or accumulated earnings. The government contributes an extra 20% on top of your contributions annually by way of the CESG, up to a $500 max. Tuition As you noted, official tuition fees, reported on a fee slip, is where one large chunk of the RESP will go. This will be pulled out of your original contributions and is known as a Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Withdrawal. Different RESP administrators (bank, discount brokerage, etc) determine what sort of proof of enrolment would be required, but it ought to be similar between them and different educational institutions. This withdrawal is not taxable by either you or the student, since the contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Educational Assistance Payments (EAPs) EAPs are for other expenses that the student would incur by being at university. In the first 13 weeks of studies, you can request up to $5000 in EAP withdrawals (full-time studies, $2500 for par-time), after which there is no limit. Each EAP payment is made up of the CESG and accumulated earnings portions of the RESP, whose proportions are determined based on the EAP amount. This is considered taxable income for the student, or beneficiary, in the year the EAP withdrawal is made. It gets a bit fuzzy here, from my understanding. The student would ostensibly be able to purchase anything that they could rationalize as education-related, and I'm not sure what sort of proof different banks would need. Maybe just the confirmation of enrolment is enough. This is the part of my post that should directly answer your question which, using this terminology, boils down to what sorts of expenses can I use the EAP withdrawals for? To this, from what I've read out there, I would say that you could probably purchase anything. From the student's point of view, they are enrolled in a qualifying education institution, and if they don't spend the money on education-related purchases, money required for those purchases will have to come from somewhere else anyway. Other withdrawals Any other type of withdrawal is like walking through a minefield. You can withdraw the original contributions without paying tax on them, but you would need to pay back the corresponding CESG back to the government. Other types of withdrawals would be taxable and may incur a 20% penalty. I don't have any more details on that. As I mentioned, this is from what I've read and looked into for future RESP purposes. A new concept that has popped up is RESP vs TFSA. The TFSA provides the same tax shelter (after-tax dollar contributions, no tax on the gains), but also allows for no tax on the withdrawals. To add to that, the TFSA withdrawals are tax-free as well. The main benefit that the RESP offers that the TFSA doesn't is the CESG. My current opinion (and I could be wrong) is that you should contribute $2500 annually to the RESP in order to get the $500 max CESG, and anything else that you'd like to contribute should go in a TFSA. But I digress. Hopefully my long-winded response makes some sense. Enjoy."
},
{
"docid": "81148",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA."
},
{
"docid": "398520",
"title": "",
"text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one."
},
{
"docid": "2128",
"title": "",
"text": "If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead."
},
{
"docid": "448358",
"title": "",
"text": "Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think."
},
{
"docid": "198825",
"title": "",
"text": "4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments."
},
{
"docid": "162745",
"title": "",
"text": "Some have suggested you can put the money in the 401k then take a loan to pay off the student loan debt. Some things to consider before doing that: Check your 401k plan first. Some plans allow you to continue paying on a loan if you leave the company, some do not. If you have to change jobs before you pay back the 401k loan, you may only have 90 days to completely pay the loan or the IRS will treat this as an early withdrawal, which means taxes and penalties. If you don't have another job lined up, this is going to make things much worse since you will have lost your income and may owe even more to the government (depending on your state, it may be up to 50% of the remaining amount). There are ways to work with some student debt loans to defer or adjust payments. There is no such option with a 401k plan. This may change your taxes at the end of the year. Most people can deduct student loan interest payments. You cannot deduct interest paid to your 401k loan. You are paying the interest to yourself though. It may hurt your long term growth potential. Currently loans on 401k loans are in the 4% range. If you are able to make more than 4% inside of your 401k, you will be losing out on that growth since that money will only be earning the interest you pay back. It may limit flexibility for a few years. When people fall on hard times, their 401k is their last resort. Some plans have a limit on the number of loans you can have at one time. You may need a loan or a withdrawal in the future. Once you take the money out for a loan, you can't access it again. See the first bullet about working with student loan vendors, they typically have ways to work with you under hard circumstances. 401k loans don't. Amortization schedule. Many 401k loans can only be amortized for a max of 5 years, if you currently have 10 year loans, can you afford to pay the same debt back in 1/2 the time at a lower rate? You will have to do the math. When considering debt other than student loans (such as credit cards), if you fall on hard times, you can always negotiate to reduce the amount you owe, or the debt can be discharged (with tax penalties of course). They can't make you take money out. Once it is out, it is fair game. Just to clarify, the above isn't saying you shouldn't do it under any circumstances, it is a few things you need to evaluate before making that choice. The 401k is supposed to be used to help secure your financial future when you can't work. The numbers may work out in the short term, but do they still work out in the long term? Most credit cards require minimum payments high enough to pay back in 7-10 years, so does shortening that to 5 (or less) make up for the (probably early) years of compounding interest for your retirement? I think others have addressed some of this so I won't do the math. I can tell you that I have a 401k loan, and when things got iffy at my job for, it was a very bad feeling to have that over my head because, unlike other debts, there isn't much you can do about it."
},
{
"docid": "270818",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\""
},
{
"docid": "18436",
"title": "",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps."
},
{
"docid": "327060",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buy term and invest the difference is certainly the standard recommendation, and for good reason. When you start looking at some sample numbers the \"\"buy term and invest the difference\"\" strategy starts to look very good. Here are the rates I found (27 yr old in Texas with good health, non-smoker, etc): $200k term life: $21/month $200k whole life: $177/month If you were to invest the difference in a retirement account for 40 years, assuming a 7% rate of return (many retirement planning estimates use 10%) you would have $411,859 at the end of that period. (If you use 10% that figure jumps to over $994k.) Needless to say, $400k in a retirement account is better than a $200k death benefit. Especially since you can't get the death benefit AND the cash value. Certainly one big difficulty is making sure you invest that difference. The best way to handle that is to set up a direct deposit that goes straight from your paycheck to the retirement account before it even touches your bank account. The next best thing would be an automatic transfer from your bank account. You may wonder 'What if I can no longer afford to invest that money?' First off, take a second and third look at your finances before you start eating into that. But if financial crisis comes and you truly can't afford to fund your own life insurance / retirement account then perhaps it will be a good thing you're not locked into a life insurance policy that forces you to pay those premiums. That extra freedom is another benefit of the \"\"buy term and invest the difference\"\" strategy. It is great that you are asking this question now while you are young. Because it is much easier to put this strategy into play now while you are young. As far as using a cash value policy to help diversify your portfolio: I am no expert in how to allocate long term investments after maxing out my IRA and 401k. (My IRA maxes out at $5k/year, another $5k for my wife's, another $16.5k for my 401k.) Before I maxed that out I would have my house paid for and kid's education saved for. And by then it would make sense to pay a financial adviser to help you manage all those investments. They would be the one to ask about using a cash value policy similar to @lux lux's description. I believe you should NEVER PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Cash value policies are complex and I don't fully understand them. I should add that of course my calculations are subject to the standard disclaimer that those investment returns aren't guaranteed. As with any financial decision you must be willing to accept some level of risk and the question is not whether to accept risk, but how much is acceptable. That's why I used 7% in my calculation instead of just 10%. I wanted to demonstrate that you could still beat out whole life if you wanted to reduce your risk and/or if the stock market performs poorly.\""
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "97805",
"title": "",
"text": "If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well."
},
{
"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": "24404",
"title": "",
"text": "For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way."
},
{
"docid": "264023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\""
},
{
"docid": "135873",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Does your company offer a 401k? or similar pre-tax retirement plans? Is your company a publicly traded company? These questions are important, basically the key to any of your investments should be diversification. This means buying more than one kind of investment, amongst stock(s), bonds, real estate or more. The answer to \"\"How Much\"\" of your salary should go to company stock, is subjective. I personally would contribute the max toward a retirement plan or even post-tax savings, which would be invested in a variety of public companies. Hope that helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "137267",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "309200",
"title": "",
"text": "A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "327060",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buy term and invest the difference is certainly the standard recommendation, and for good reason. When you start looking at some sample numbers the \"\"buy term and invest the difference\"\" strategy starts to look very good. Here are the rates I found (27 yr old in Texas with good health, non-smoker, etc): $200k term life: $21/month $200k whole life: $177/month If you were to invest the difference in a retirement account for 40 years, assuming a 7% rate of return (many retirement planning estimates use 10%) you would have $411,859 at the end of that period. (If you use 10% that figure jumps to over $994k.) Needless to say, $400k in a retirement account is better than a $200k death benefit. Especially since you can't get the death benefit AND the cash value. Certainly one big difficulty is making sure you invest that difference. The best way to handle that is to set up a direct deposit that goes straight from your paycheck to the retirement account before it even touches your bank account. The next best thing would be an automatic transfer from your bank account. You may wonder 'What if I can no longer afford to invest that money?' First off, take a second and third look at your finances before you start eating into that. But if financial crisis comes and you truly can't afford to fund your own life insurance / retirement account then perhaps it will be a good thing you're not locked into a life insurance policy that forces you to pay those premiums. That extra freedom is another benefit of the \"\"buy term and invest the difference\"\" strategy. It is great that you are asking this question now while you are young. Because it is much easier to put this strategy into play now while you are young. As far as using a cash value policy to help diversify your portfolio: I am no expert in how to allocate long term investments after maxing out my IRA and 401k. (My IRA maxes out at $5k/year, another $5k for my wife's, another $16.5k for my 401k.) Before I maxed that out I would have my house paid for and kid's education saved for. And by then it would make sense to pay a financial adviser to help you manage all those investments. They would be the one to ask about using a cash value policy similar to @lux lux's description. I believe you should NEVER PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Cash value policies are complex and I don't fully understand them. I should add that of course my calculations are subject to the standard disclaimer that those investment returns aren't guaranteed. As with any financial decision you must be willing to accept some level of risk and the question is not whether to accept risk, but how much is acceptable. That's why I used 7% in my calculation instead of just 10%. I wanted to demonstrate that you could still beat out whole life if you wanted to reduce your risk and/or if the stock market performs poorly.\""
},
{
"docid": "290322",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth."
},
{
"docid": "317419",
"title": "",
"text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED."
},
{
"docid": "2128",
"title": "",
"text": "If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "273497",
"title": "",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan."
},
{
"docid": "552031",
"title": "",
"text": "Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first."
},
{
"docid": "140917",
"title": "",
"text": "Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "367355",
"title": "",
"text": "Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later."
},
{
"docid": "353009",
"title": "",
"text": "Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year."
},
{
"docid": "64459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match."
},
{
"docid": "225282",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\""
},
{
"docid": "162745",
"title": "",
"text": "Some have suggested you can put the money in the 401k then take a loan to pay off the student loan debt. Some things to consider before doing that: Check your 401k plan first. Some plans allow you to continue paying on a loan if you leave the company, some do not. If you have to change jobs before you pay back the 401k loan, you may only have 90 days to completely pay the loan or the IRS will treat this as an early withdrawal, which means taxes and penalties. If you don't have another job lined up, this is going to make things much worse since you will have lost your income and may owe even more to the government (depending on your state, it may be up to 50% of the remaining amount). There are ways to work with some student debt loans to defer or adjust payments. There is no such option with a 401k plan. This may change your taxes at the end of the year. Most people can deduct student loan interest payments. You cannot deduct interest paid to your 401k loan. You are paying the interest to yourself though. It may hurt your long term growth potential. Currently loans on 401k loans are in the 4% range. If you are able to make more than 4% inside of your 401k, you will be losing out on that growth since that money will only be earning the interest you pay back. It may limit flexibility for a few years. When people fall on hard times, their 401k is their last resort. Some plans have a limit on the number of loans you can have at one time. You may need a loan or a withdrawal in the future. Once you take the money out for a loan, you can't access it again. See the first bullet about working with student loan vendors, they typically have ways to work with you under hard circumstances. 401k loans don't. Amortization schedule. Many 401k loans can only be amortized for a max of 5 years, if you currently have 10 year loans, can you afford to pay the same debt back in 1/2 the time at a lower rate? You will have to do the math. When considering debt other than student loans (such as credit cards), if you fall on hard times, you can always negotiate to reduce the amount you owe, or the debt can be discharged (with tax penalties of course). They can't make you take money out. Once it is out, it is fair game. Just to clarify, the above isn't saying you shouldn't do it under any circumstances, it is a few things you need to evaluate before making that choice. The 401k is supposed to be used to help secure your financial future when you can't work. The numbers may work out in the short term, but do they still work out in the long term? Most credit cards require minimum payments high enough to pay back in 7-10 years, so does shortening that to 5 (or less) make up for the (probably early) years of compounding interest for your retirement? I think others have addressed some of this so I won't do the math. I can tell you that I have a 401k loan, and when things got iffy at my job for, it was a very bad feeling to have that over my head because, unlike other debts, there isn't much you can do about it."
},
{
"docid": "101490",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process."
},
{
"docid": "422946",
"title": "",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation"
},
{
"docid": "345199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\""
},
{
"docid": "424841",
"title": "",
"text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "140349",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on."
},
{
"docid": "315666",
"title": "",
"text": "First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:"
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "508921",
"title": "",
"text": "As long as you're in a lower tax bracket - you would probably be better off paying the taxes now, and investing into the Roth IRA/401K. However, you should be investing for your retirement now, and not later, because of the compounding effect, and also you'll gain the employer matching (if available)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "120394",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "366307",
"title": "",
"text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month."
},
{
"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": "422946",
"title": "",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation"
},
{
"docid": "509772",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs."
},
{
"docid": "3104",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "552031",
"title": "",
"text": "Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first."
},
{
"docid": "367355",
"title": "",
"text": "Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later."
},
{
"docid": "424841",
"title": "",
"text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "294573",
"title": "",
"text": "You should always always enroll in an espp if there is no lockup period and you can finance the contributions at a non-onerous rate. You should also always always sell it right away regardless of your feelings for the company. If you feel you must hold company stock to be a good employee buy some in your 401k which has additional advantages for company stock. (Gains treated as gains and not income on distribution.) If you can't contribute at first, do as much as you can and use your results from the previous offering period to finance a greater contribution the next period. I slowly went from 4% to 10% over 6 offering periods at my plan. The actual apr on a 15% discount plan is ~90% if you are able to sell right when the shares are priced. (Usually not the case, but the risk is small, there usually is a day or two administrative lockup (getting the shares into your account)) even for ESPP's that have no official lockup period. see here for details on the calculation. http://blog.adamnash.com/2006/11/22/your-employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp-is-worth-a-lot-more-than-15/ Just a note For your reference I worked for Motorola for 10 years. A stock that fell pretty dramatically over those 10 years and I always made money on the ESPP and more than once doubled my money. One additional note....Be aware of tax treatment on espp. Specifically be aware that plans generally withhold income tax on gains over the purchase price automatically. I didn't realize this for a couple of years and double taxed myself on those gains. Fortunately I found out my error in time to refile and get the money back, but it was a headache."
},
{
"docid": "64459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match."
},
{
"docid": "308380",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation."
},
{
"docid": "270818",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\""
},
{
"docid": "43573",
"title": "",
"text": "If stopping the 401k contributions temporarily would get you out of debt faster and also stop you from having to take out more student loans, then stop the contributions right now. You can always put some money into regular savings for emergencies etc - in fact, you should - but given a choice between deferring further contributions to your retirement and deferring the (hopeful) increase in income you get when you graduate, definitely choose the former. That of course also means that you don't take off a few semesters from studying to make money to put into a 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "81148",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA."
},
{
"docid": "317419",
"title": "",
"text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED."
},
{
"docid": "244412",
"title": "",
"text": "My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "434190",
"title": "",
"text": "The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "590833",
"title": "",
"text": "From what I understand (I never had an RESP but would consider one for a future child), with the right type of withdrawal, you can use the RESP money for anything education related. Basically, know that the RESP is considered to have three compartments within it: (1) your contributions, (2) contributions from the government through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG), and (3) the return on the investment, or accumulated earnings. The government contributes an extra 20% on top of your contributions annually by way of the CESG, up to a $500 max. Tuition As you noted, official tuition fees, reported on a fee slip, is where one large chunk of the RESP will go. This will be pulled out of your original contributions and is known as a Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Withdrawal. Different RESP administrators (bank, discount brokerage, etc) determine what sort of proof of enrolment would be required, but it ought to be similar between them and different educational institutions. This withdrawal is not taxable by either you or the student, since the contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Educational Assistance Payments (EAPs) EAPs are for other expenses that the student would incur by being at university. In the first 13 weeks of studies, you can request up to $5000 in EAP withdrawals (full-time studies, $2500 for par-time), after which there is no limit. Each EAP payment is made up of the CESG and accumulated earnings portions of the RESP, whose proportions are determined based on the EAP amount. This is considered taxable income for the student, or beneficiary, in the year the EAP withdrawal is made. It gets a bit fuzzy here, from my understanding. The student would ostensibly be able to purchase anything that they could rationalize as education-related, and I'm not sure what sort of proof different banks would need. Maybe just the confirmation of enrolment is enough. This is the part of my post that should directly answer your question which, using this terminology, boils down to what sorts of expenses can I use the EAP withdrawals for? To this, from what I've read out there, I would say that you could probably purchase anything. From the student's point of view, they are enrolled in a qualifying education institution, and if they don't spend the money on education-related purchases, money required for those purchases will have to come from somewhere else anyway. Other withdrawals Any other type of withdrawal is like walking through a minefield. You can withdraw the original contributions without paying tax on them, but you would need to pay back the corresponding CESG back to the government. Other types of withdrawals would be taxable and may incur a 20% penalty. I don't have any more details on that. As I mentioned, this is from what I've read and looked into for future RESP purposes. A new concept that has popped up is RESP vs TFSA. The TFSA provides the same tax shelter (after-tax dollar contributions, no tax on the gains), but also allows for no tax on the withdrawals. To add to that, the TFSA withdrawals are tax-free as well. The main benefit that the RESP offers that the TFSA doesn't is the CESG. My current opinion (and I could be wrong) is that you should contribute $2500 annually to the RESP in order to get the $500 max CESG, and anything else that you'd like to contribute should go in a TFSA. But I digress. Hopefully my long-winded response makes some sense. Enjoy."
},
{
"docid": "315666",
"title": "",
"text": "First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:"
},
{
"docid": "308380",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation."
},
{
"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": "159921",
"title": "",
"text": "Poster forgot to mention his age (range). If you're aged 50 or more, you are allowed a catch-up of $6000 in addition to the $18000 max deferral amount to your 401k (2015-2017) IRS Retirement Topics - Catch-Up Contributions"
},
{
"docid": "167438",
"title": "",
"text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)."
},
{
"docid": "367355",
"title": "",
"text": "Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "509772",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs."
},
{
"docid": "204992",
"title": "",
"text": "You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else."
},
{
"docid": "336917",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\""
},
{
"docid": "7904",
"title": "",
"text": "I see a lot of comments on reddit from people about how they just bought a house. A lot of people still have a post 2008 bust mindset about the world, ideas such as house values always rise, an education is always worth it, always max out your 401k, etc."
},
{
"docid": "497561",
"title": "",
"text": "I routinely max out my 401k contributions. The company's stupid website actually forces me to make two contributions -- one for the regular contribution, and another for the Catchup Contribution. I routinely adjust my 401k contribution throughout the year -- at the first of the year, I calculate how much to withhold such that I can adjust withholding to 6% of salary more than before, once I hit the SS tax limit. At the first of the year, I ignore bonuses. I re-adjust (if needed) once I know bonuses. I've worked for my company for almost 30 years now."
},
{
"docid": "97805",
"title": "",
"text": "If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well."
},
{
"docid": "565429",
"title": "",
"text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA."
},
{
"docid": "273497",
"title": "",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan."
},
{
"docid": "135790",
"title": "",
"text": "With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard. The reason is the sheer opportunity of it. As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound! It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up. Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that. After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them. Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money. 401K money is untouchable. No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy. As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary? I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment. Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?"
},
{
"docid": "140349",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on."
},
{
"docid": "576391",
"title": "",
"text": "You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!"
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "279570",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority. Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments? Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most. By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the \"\"live in the 15% bracket, tops\"\" range.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "90927",
"title": "",
"text": "Hard to give an answer without knowing more details (interest rates, remaining principle on loans, especially how soon the new roof is needed). Maintaining the value in your home (unless you are planning to walk away from it or short-sell or something) is of paramount importance, and the cost of a leak should it happen can be substantial. If the roof is a few years out, and you have loans with interest rates about oh I'd say around 6%or more then I would pay off those loans and take the money you were paying there and start putting it into a fund to pay for the roof. I am also a huge fan of doing whatever you can to max out your 401K contributions. Money put into a 401K early has a LOT more value than money put in later, and since you don't pay taxes on it, the cost out of your pocket is much lower (eg. at a 20% tax rate it costs you only $80 out of pocket to put $100 into your 401.. (look at that, you just made like 25% return on that $80) Paying off loans is pretty much equivalent to making a risk free return on the money equal to the interest rate on the loan. But to REALLY make that work, what you need to do is in a virtual sense, keep making the loan payment just now pay it to yourself, putting that money into a savings account, or towards your 401K or whatever. If you just torn around and start spending that money, then you are not really getting as much value to paying off the loan early."
},
{
"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": "97805",
"title": "",
"text": "If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well."
},
{
"docid": "135790",
"title": "",
"text": "With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard. The reason is the sheer opportunity of it. As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound! It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up. Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that. After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them. Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money. 401K money is untouchable. No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy. As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary? I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment. Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?"
},
{
"docid": "433371",
"title": "",
"text": "BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "317419",
"title": "",
"text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED."
},
{
"docid": "328754",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\""
},
{
"docid": "127838",
"title": "",
"text": "Saving for college you have a couple of options. 529 plans are probably the best bet for most people wanting to save for their kids college education. You can put a lot of money away ~$300k and you may get a state tax deduction. The downside is if you're kid doesn't go to college you may end up eating the 10% penalty. State specific prepaid tuition plans. The upside is you know roughly the return you are going to get on your money. The downside is your kid has to go to a state school in the state you prepaid or there are likely withdrawal penalties. For the most part these really aren't that great of a deal any more. ESAs are also an option but they only allow you to contribute $2k/year, but you have more investment options than with the 529 plans. Traditional and ROTH IRA accounts can also be used to pay for higher education. I wouldn't recommend this route in general but if you maxed out your 401k and weren't using your IRA contribution limits you could put extra money here and get more or really different flexibility than you can with a 529 account. I doubt IRA's will ever be asked for on a FAFSA which might be helpful. Another option is to save the money in a regular brokerage account. You would have more flexibility, but lower returns after taxes. One advantage to this route is if you think your kid might be borderline for financial aid a year or two before he starts college you could move this money into another investment that doesn't matter for financial aid purposes. A few words of caution, make sure you save for retirement before saving for your kids college. He can always get loans to pay for school but no one is going to give you a loan to pay for your retirement. Also be cautious with the amount of money you give your adult child, studies have shown that the more money that parents give their adult children the less successful they are compared to their peers."
},
{
"docid": "81148",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA."
},
{
"docid": "198825",
"title": "",
"text": "4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments."
},
{
"docid": "176110",
"title": "",
"text": "Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant."
},
{
"docid": "411354",
"title": "",
"text": "If you leave your job with money that you contributed to the 401K, the company will have a policy about whether you can leave the money in the 401K or whether you must take it with you. I have normally seen that if it is a small amount, then it must be taken and if it is over a certain amount (maybe $10K) then you have the option of leaving it in the account or taking it out. If you take it out, then you should contact a brokerage first and get instructions from them for how to have it transferred into a rollover account to avoid having to pay tax. If the company makes the check out to you or transfers money into a non-retirement account, then they will very easily cause a taxable event and they will likely withhold tax from the payment. If you leave the money in the 401K after you leave, you will generally have fewer investment choices, higher fees, and you may have higher risks. Occasionally companies in hard times fraudulently raid their 401K accounts and when this happens it can be very difficult to get it back. (For examples see the Dept Of Labor page at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/criminal/main.html and look for 401k or retirement in titles). As far as having the money invested for several years, that time can be your friend if you get a reasonable rate of return. Over 30 years your money should be able to double multiple times. (At 8% return it will take less than 10 years to double the money. [see http://buyupside.com/calculators/doublemoneyfeb08.htm])"
},
{
"docid": "552031",
"title": "",
"text": "Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "577582",
"title": "",
"text": "Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "113881",
"title": "",
"text": "Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids."
},
{
"docid": "43573",
"title": "",
"text": "If stopping the 401k contributions temporarily would get you out of debt faster and also stop you from having to take out more student loans, then stop the contributions right now. You can always put some money into regular savings for emergencies etc - in fact, you should - but given a choice between deferring further contributions to your retirement and deferring the (hopeful) increase in income you get when you graduate, definitely choose the former. That of course also means that you don't take off a few semesters from studying to make money to put into a 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "101490",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process."
},
{
"docid": "280530",
"title": "",
"text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "497216",
"title": "",
"text": "Rule of thumb: Invest in a tax deferred account only if your marginal tax rate is higher now than it will be in retirement. If you plan on making more taxable income in retirement than you do right now, then you should invest outside a tax deferred account."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "367355",
"title": "",
"text": "Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later."
},
{
"docid": "538238",
"title": "",
"text": "I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR). I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans."
},
{
"docid": "204992",
"title": "",
"text": "You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else."
},
{
"docid": "64459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match."
},
{
"docid": "81148",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA."
},
{
"docid": "424841",
"title": "",
"text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "101490",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process."
},
{
"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": "167438",
"title": "",
"text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)."
},
{
"docid": "198825",
"title": "",
"text": "4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments."
},
{
"docid": "140349",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on."
},
{
"docid": "140917",
"title": "",
"text": "Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "345199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\""
},
{
"docid": "18436",
"title": "",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps."
},
{
"docid": "396257",
"title": "",
"text": "All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "315666",
"title": "",
"text": "First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:"
},
{
"docid": "176110",
"title": "",
"text": "Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant."
},
{
"docid": "53028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\""
},
{
"docid": "590833",
"title": "",
"text": "From what I understand (I never had an RESP but would consider one for a future child), with the right type of withdrawal, you can use the RESP money for anything education related. Basically, know that the RESP is considered to have three compartments within it: (1) your contributions, (2) contributions from the government through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG), and (3) the return on the investment, or accumulated earnings. The government contributes an extra 20% on top of your contributions annually by way of the CESG, up to a $500 max. Tuition As you noted, official tuition fees, reported on a fee slip, is where one large chunk of the RESP will go. This will be pulled out of your original contributions and is known as a Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Withdrawal. Different RESP administrators (bank, discount brokerage, etc) determine what sort of proof of enrolment would be required, but it ought to be similar between them and different educational institutions. This withdrawal is not taxable by either you or the student, since the contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Educational Assistance Payments (EAPs) EAPs are for other expenses that the student would incur by being at university. In the first 13 weeks of studies, you can request up to $5000 in EAP withdrawals (full-time studies, $2500 for par-time), after which there is no limit. Each EAP payment is made up of the CESG and accumulated earnings portions of the RESP, whose proportions are determined based on the EAP amount. This is considered taxable income for the student, or beneficiary, in the year the EAP withdrawal is made. It gets a bit fuzzy here, from my understanding. The student would ostensibly be able to purchase anything that they could rationalize as education-related, and I'm not sure what sort of proof different banks would need. Maybe just the confirmation of enrolment is enough. This is the part of my post that should directly answer your question which, using this terminology, boils down to what sorts of expenses can I use the EAP withdrawals for? To this, from what I've read out there, I would say that you could probably purchase anything. From the student's point of view, they are enrolled in a qualifying education institution, and if they don't spend the money on education-related purchases, money required for those purchases will have to come from somewhere else anyway. Other withdrawals Any other type of withdrawal is like walking through a minefield. You can withdraw the original contributions without paying tax on them, but you would need to pay back the corresponding CESG back to the government. Other types of withdrawals would be taxable and may incur a 20% penalty. I don't have any more details on that. As I mentioned, this is from what I've read and looked into for future RESP purposes. A new concept that has popped up is RESP vs TFSA. The TFSA provides the same tax shelter (after-tax dollar contributions, no tax on the gains), but also allows for no tax on the withdrawals. To add to that, the TFSA withdrawals are tax-free as well. The main benefit that the RESP offers that the TFSA doesn't is the CESG. My current opinion (and I could be wrong) is that you should contribute $2500 annually to the RESP in order to get the $500 max CESG, and anything else that you'd like to contribute should go in a TFSA. But I digress. Hopefully my long-winded response makes some sense. Enjoy."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "552887",
"title": "",
"text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "396257",
"title": "",
"text": "All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "538238",
"title": "",
"text": "I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR). I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans."
},
{
"docid": "308380",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "424841",
"title": "",
"text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "5180",
"title": "",
"text": "Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth). For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off. For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you. For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest."
},
{
"docid": "590833",
"title": "",
"text": "From what I understand (I never had an RESP but would consider one for a future child), with the right type of withdrawal, you can use the RESP money for anything education related. Basically, know that the RESP is considered to have three compartments within it: (1) your contributions, (2) contributions from the government through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG), and (3) the return on the investment, or accumulated earnings. The government contributes an extra 20% on top of your contributions annually by way of the CESG, up to a $500 max. Tuition As you noted, official tuition fees, reported on a fee slip, is where one large chunk of the RESP will go. This will be pulled out of your original contributions and is known as a Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Withdrawal. Different RESP administrators (bank, discount brokerage, etc) determine what sort of proof of enrolment would be required, but it ought to be similar between them and different educational institutions. This withdrawal is not taxable by either you or the student, since the contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Educational Assistance Payments (EAPs) EAPs are for other expenses that the student would incur by being at university. In the first 13 weeks of studies, you can request up to $5000 in EAP withdrawals (full-time studies, $2500 for par-time), after which there is no limit. Each EAP payment is made up of the CESG and accumulated earnings portions of the RESP, whose proportions are determined based on the EAP amount. This is considered taxable income for the student, or beneficiary, in the year the EAP withdrawal is made. It gets a bit fuzzy here, from my understanding. The student would ostensibly be able to purchase anything that they could rationalize as education-related, and I'm not sure what sort of proof different banks would need. Maybe just the confirmation of enrolment is enough. This is the part of my post that should directly answer your question which, using this terminology, boils down to what sorts of expenses can I use the EAP withdrawals for? To this, from what I've read out there, I would say that you could probably purchase anything. From the student's point of view, they are enrolled in a qualifying education institution, and if they don't spend the money on education-related purchases, money required for those purchases will have to come from somewhere else anyway. Other withdrawals Any other type of withdrawal is like walking through a minefield. You can withdraw the original contributions without paying tax on them, but you would need to pay back the corresponding CESG back to the government. Other types of withdrawals would be taxable and may incur a 20% penalty. I don't have any more details on that. As I mentioned, this is from what I've read and looked into for future RESP purposes. A new concept that has popped up is RESP vs TFSA. The TFSA provides the same tax shelter (after-tax dollar contributions, no tax on the gains), but also allows for no tax on the withdrawals. To add to that, the TFSA withdrawals are tax-free as well. The main benefit that the RESP offers that the TFSA doesn't is the CESG. My current opinion (and I could be wrong) is that you should contribute $2500 annually to the RESP in order to get the $500 max CESG, and anything else that you'd like to contribute should go in a TFSA. But I digress. Hopefully my long-winded response makes some sense. Enjoy."
},
{
"docid": "433371",
"title": "",
"text": "BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "162745",
"title": "",
"text": "Some have suggested you can put the money in the 401k then take a loan to pay off the student loan debt. Some things to consider before doing that: Check your 401k plan first. Some plans allow you to continue paying on a loan if you leave the company, some do not. If you have to change jobs before you pay back the 401k loan, you may only have 90 days to completely pay the loan or the IRS will treat this as an early withdrawal, which means taxes and penalties. If you don't have another job lined up, this is going to make things much worse since you will have lost your income and may owe even more to the government (depending on your state, it may be up to 50% of the remaining amount). There are ways to work with some student debt loans to defer or adjust payments. There is no such option with a 401k plan. This may change your taxes at the end of the year. Most people can deduct student loan interest payments. You cannot deduct interest paid to your 401k loan. You are paying the interest to yourself though. It may hurt your long term growth potential. Currently loans on 401k loans are in the 4% range. If you are able to make more than 4% inside of your 401k, you will be losing out on that growth since that money will only be earning the interest you pay back. It may limit flexibility for a few years. When people fall on hard times, their 401k is their last resort. Some plans have a limit on the number of loans you can have at one time. You may need a loan or a withdrawal in the future. Once you take the money out for a loan, you can't access it again. See the first bullet about working with student loan vendors, they typically have ways to work with you under hard circumstances. 401k loans don't. Amortization schedule. Many 401k loans can only be amortized for a max of 5 years, if you currently have 10 year loans, can you afford to pay the same debt back in 1/2 the time at a lower rate? You will have to do the math. When considering debt other than student loans (such as credit cards), if you fall on hard times, you can always negotiate to reduce the amount you owe, or the debt can be discharged (with tax penalties of course). They can't make you take money out. Once it is out, it is fair game. Just to clarify, the above isn't saying you shouldn't do it under any circumstances, it is a few things you need to evaluate before making that choice. The 401k is supposed to be used to help secure your financial future when you can't work. The numbers may work out in the short term, but do they still work out in the long term? Most credit cards require minimum payments high enough to pay back in 7-10 years, so does shortening that to 5 (or less) make up for the (probably early) years of compounding interest for your retirement? I think others have addressed some of this so I won't do the math. I can tell you that I have a 401k loan, and when things got iffy at my job for, it was a very bad feeling to have that over my head because, unlike other debts, there isn't much you can do about it."
},
{
"docid": "227906",
"title": "",
"text": "When you withdraw from your RRSP, you lose that contribution room and you will never get it back. Let's say you have room to contribute a total of $50,000 to RRSPs. If you withdraw $5000 from one institution and deposit it in another, you will now have a total contribution room of $45,000. This will only matter to you if you hope to max out your RRSP contributions sometime in your life, of course, but almost everyone should be aiming for this. Otherwise, you are correct. Your extra income will be mitigated by your immediate recontribution to your RRSP. Note that there are two circumstances where withdrawing from your RRSP does not reduce your contribution limit. The home-buyers plan lets you withdraw up to $25,000 to buy a home. You have to repay this over no more than 15 years. The second is the Lifelong Learning Plan, which lets you withdraw up to $20,000 (up to $10,000 annually), to be repaid over a 10-year period. Any other withdrawals (or failure to repay under the HBP or LLP) will lower your RRSP contribution room. In summary, it's almost certainly worth paying the $125 fee unless you are certain you will not be maxing out your RRSP contributions in your lifetime."
},
{
"docid": "336917",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\""
},
{
"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": "140917",
"title": "",
"text": "Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "137267",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful."
},
{
"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": "3104",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "273497",
"title": "",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan."
},
{
"docid": "497561",
"title": "",
"text": "I routinely max out my 401k contributions. The company's stupid website actually forces me to make two contributions -- one for the regular contribution, and another for the Catchup Contribution. I routinely adjust my 401k contribution throughout the year -- at the first of the year, I calculate how much to withhold such that I can adjust withholding to 6% of salary more than before, once I hit the SS tax limit. At the first of the year, I ignore bonuses. I re-adjust (if needed) once I know bonuses. I've worked for my company for almost 30 years now."
},
{
"docid": "225282",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\""
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "341146",
"title": "",
"text": "While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail. I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options. That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA. I commend you for that. As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "554739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\""
},
{
"docid": "345199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\""
},
{
"docid": "366307",
"title": "",
"text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month."
},
{
"docid": "396257",
"title": "",
"text": "All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k)."
},
{
"docid": "167438",
"title": "",
"text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)."
},
{
"docid": "225282",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\""
},
{
"docid": "47747",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Finance Buff discusses why the Roth 401k is often disadvantaged compared to a Traditional 401k in the article The Case Against the Roth 401k, including the following reasons (paraphrased): Contributions to the 401k come from the \"\"top\"\" of your highest tax bracket rate but withdrawals fill in from the \"\"bottom\"\". For example, suppose you are in the 28% tax bracket. Every marginal dollar you contribute to the Traditional 401k reduces your tax burden by .28 cents. However, when withdrawing, the first $10,150 of income is tax-free (from standard deduction and exemption, 2014 numbers; $20,300 for married couples, joint filing). The next dollars are at the 10% tax bracket, and so on. This is an advantage for the Traditional 401k only if you earn less when withdrawing than you did when contributing, a reasonable assumption. Avoid High State Income Tax. There are many states that have low or no state income tax. If you live in a state with a high income tax, paying tax now through the Roth 401k reduces the benefit of moving to a state with a lower income tax rate. Avoid triggering credit phaseouts. Many tax credits (e.g. student loan interest, child tax credit, Hope credit, Roth IRA eligibility, etc.) begin phasing out as your income increases. Contributing to the Traditional 401k can help you realize more of those credits when you starting running up against those limits. As described in the article, if these items don't apply, contributing to the Roth 401k can be a valuable component of tax diversification.\""
},
{
"docid": "317419",
"title": "",
"text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED."
},
{
"docid": "565429",
"title": "",
"text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA."
},
{
"docid": "552031",
"title": "",
"text": "Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "177736",
"title": "",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs."
},
{
"docid": "577582",
"title": "",
"text": "Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "122061",
"title": "",
"text": "The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit."
},
{
"docid": "3104",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "49614",
"title": "",
"text": "\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\""
},
{
"docid": "509772",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs."
},
{
"docid": "422946",
"title": "",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation"
},
{
"docid": "526520",
"title": "",
"text": "Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance."
}
] |
3724 | Should you always max out contributions to your 401k? | [
{
"docid": "199970",
"title": "",
"text": "Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "177736",
"title": "",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs."
},
{
"docid": "483695",
"title": "",
"text": "IRA and 401k are investment accounts. 401k accounts may be limited in what you're allowed to invest in more than the IRA, but still - these are investment accounts. The money you deposit in them - is invested, per your instructions. What happens to it is up to you. When you leave your job, if you have some unvested match balance in the 401k, it may be refunded back to your employer, but your own contributions are always vested."
},
{
"docid": "101490",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process."
},
{
"docid": "398520",
"title": "",
"text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one."
},
{
"docid": "526520",
"title": "",
"text": "Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance."
},
{
"docid": "538238",
"title": "",
"text": "I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR). I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans."
},
{
"docid": "554739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\""
},
{
"docid": "565429",
"title": "",
"text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA."
},
{
"docid": "345199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\""
},
{
"docid": "290322",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth."
},
{
"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": "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": "47747",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Finance Buff discusses why the Roth 401k is often disadvantaged compared to a Traditional 401k in the article The Case Against the Roth 401k, including the following reasons (paraphrased): Contributions to the 401k come from the \"\"top\"\" of your highest tax bracket rate but withdrawals fill in from the \"\"bottom\"\". For example, suppose you are in the 28% tax bracket. Every marginal dollar you contribute to the Traditional 401k reduces your tax burden by .28 cents. However, when withdrawing, the first $10,150 of income is tax-free (from standard deduction and exemption, 2014 numbers; $20,300 for married couples, joint filing). The next dollars are at the 10% tax bracket, and so on. This is an advantage for the Traditional 401k only if you earn less when withdrawing than you did when contributing, a reasonable assumption. Avoid High State Income Tax. There are many states that have low or no state income tax. If you live in a state with a high income tax, paying tax now through the Roth 401k reduces the benefit of moving to a state with a lower income tax rate. Avoid triggering credit phaseouts. Many tax credits (e.g. student loan interest, child tax credit, Hope credit, Roth IRA eligibility, etc.) begin phasing out as your income increases. Contributing to the Traditional 401k can help you realize more of those credits when you starting running up against those limits. As described in the article, if these items don't apply, contributing to the Roth 401k can be a valuable component of tax diversification.\""
},
{
"docid": "273497",
"title": "",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan."
},
{
"docid": "2128",
"title": "",
"text": "If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead."
},
{
"docid": "244412",
"title": "",
"text": "My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans."
},
{
"docid": "308380",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation."
},
{
"docid": "176110",
"title": "",
"text": "Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant."
},
{
"docid": "127838",
"title": "",
"text": "Saving for college you have a couple of options. 529 plans are probably the best bet for most people wanting to save for their kids college education. You can put a lot of money away ~$300k and you may get a state tax deduction. The downside is if you're kid doesn't go to college you may end up eating the 10% penalty. State specific prepaid tuition plans. The upside is you know roughly the return you are going to get on your money. The downside is your kid has to go to a state school in the state you prepaid or there are likely withdrawal penalties. For the most part these really aren't that great of a deal any more. ESAs are also an option but they only allow you to contribute $2k/year, but you have more investment options than with the 529 plans. Traditional and ROTH IRA accounts can also be used to pay for higher education. I wouldn't recommend this route in general but if you maxed out your 401k and weren't using your IRA contribution limits you could put extra money here and get more or really different flexibility than you can with a 529 account. I doubt IRA's will ever be asked for on a FAFSA which might be helpful. Another option is to save the money in a regular brokerage account. You would have more flexibility, but lower returns after taxes. One advantage to this route is if you think your kid might be borderline for financial aid a year or two before he starts college you could move this money into another investment that doesn't matter for financial aid purposes. A few words of caution, make sure you save for retirement before saving for your kids college. He can always get loans to pay for school but no one is going to give you a loan to pay for your retirement. Also be cautious with the amount of money you give your adult child, studies have shown that the more money that parents give their adult children the less successful they are compared to their peers."
}
] |
3735 | Shorting Stocks And Margin Account Minimum | [
{
"docid": "330041",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "242663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\""
},
{
"docid": "500534",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business."
},
{
"docid": "1203",
"title": "",
"text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account."
},
{
"docid": "405301",
"title": "",
"text": "The fees with trading CFDs are usually lower than standard share trading. There is usually no joining fee to join a broker and start trading with them, you must be talking about the minimum required to fund your account to trade with. What country are you in? Because if you are in the USA I believe CFD trading is not allowed there. Also there is no margin fee associated with trading CFDs. The margin is what you put in to buy or sell the CFD when you open a position. For example if you were to open a position in a share CFD where the underlying share had a price of $10 and you were looking to buy 1000 units. To buy the shares outright your outlay would be $10000 plus brokerage. If the CFD provider had a 10% margin on these share, then your initial margin to open a CFD position would be 10% of $10000 or $1000. If the price of the shares went up to $11 and you sold the shares you would get $11000 ($1000 profit), if you sold the CFDs you would get $2000 ($1000 profit). If on the other hand the shares went down to $9 and you sold the shares you would get $9000 ($1000 loss), if you sold the CFDs you would get $0 ($1000 loss). You have to be careful with margin, it is a two edged sword - it can multiply your gains as well as multiply your losses. The only fees you should be charged with CFDs is brokerage (which should be less than for share trading), and overnight financing costs. This is charged for everyday you hold a long position overnight. You should not be charge any overnight financing cost for holding short positions overnight, and if interest rates were higher you might actually get paid an overnight financing for holding short positions overnight. You may have been closed out of your bitcoin position because you didn't have enough funds in your trading account to open the size trade that you opened. From your question it seems like you are not ready to trade CFDs, you should really learn more about CFDs and the trading platform/s you plan to use before trading with your valuable money. You could probably open up a simulation account whilst you are learning the ropes and become more familiar with the trading platform and with CFDs. And if you are not sure about something ask your broker, they usually have training videos and seminars."
},
{
"docid": "331606",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "501214",
"title": "",
"text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:"
},
{
"docid": "5573",
"title": "",
"text": "Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account."
},
{
"docid": "537418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest. Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling. When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any \"\"artificial\"\" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls. Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short \"\"squeeze\"\", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest. Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect. If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction. Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity. Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price. If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point.\""
},
{
"docid": "7743",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \"\"for your protection\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "46529",
"title": "",
"text": "It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm."
},
{
"docid": "247199",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As Dheer has already told you in his answer, your plan is perfectly legal, and there are no US tax issues other than making sure that you report all the interest that you earn in all your NRE accounts (not just this one) as well as all your NRO accounts, stock and mutual fund dividends and capital gains, rental income, etc to the IRS and pay appropriate taxes. (You do get a credit from the IRS for taxes paid to India on NRO account income etc) You also may also need to report the existence of accounts if the balance exceeds $10K at any time etc. But, in addition to the foreign exchange conversion risk that Dheer has pointed out to you, have you given any thought to what is going to happen with that credit card? That 0% interest balance of $5K does not mean an interest-free loan 0f $5K for a year (with $150 service charge on that transaction). Instead, consider the following. If you use the card for any purchases, then after the first month, your purchases will be charged interest from the day that you make them till the day they are paid off: there is no 25-day grace period. The only way to avoid this is to pay off the full balance ($5K 0% interest loan PLUS $150 service charge as well as any other service charges, annual fees etc PLUS all purchases PLUS any interest) shown on the first monthly statement that you receive after taking that loan. If you choose this option, then, in effect, have taken a $5K loan for only about 55 days and have paid 3% interest (sorry, I meant to write) service fee for the privilege. If you don't use the card for any purchases at all, then the first monthly statement will show a statement balance of $5130 and (most likely) a minimum required payment of $200. By law, the minimum required payment is all interest charged for that month($0) PLUS all service fees charged during that month ($150) PLUS 1% of the rest ($50). Well, actually the law says something like \"\"a sufficient fraction of the balance to ensure that a person making the required minimum payment each month can pay off the debt in a reasonable time\"\" and most credit card companies choose 1% as the sufficient fraction and 108 months as a reasonable time. OK, so you pay the $200 and feel that you have paid off the service fee and $50 of that 0% interest loan. Not so! If you make the required minimum payment, the law allows that amount to be be applied to any part of the balance owing. It is only the excess over the minimum payment that the law says must be applied to the balance being charged the highest rate. So, you have paid off $200 of that $5K loan and still owe the service fee. The following month's statement will include interest on that unpaid $150. In short, to leave only the 0% balance owing, you have to pay $350 that first month so that next month's statement balance will be $4800 at 0%. The next month's required minimum payment will be $48, and so on. In short, you really need to keep on top of things and understand how credit-card payments really work in order to pull off your scheme successfully. Note also that the remaining part of that 0% interest balance must be paid off by the end of the period or else a humongous rate of interest will be applied retroactively from Day One, more than enough to blow away all that FD interest. So make sure that you have the cash handy to pay it off in timely fashion when it comes due.\""
},
{
"docid": "166227",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled."
},
{
"docid": "366484",
"title": "",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them."
},
{
"docid": "266900",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\""
},
{
"docid": "61853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\""
},
{
"docid": "392403",
"title": "",
"text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc."
},
{
"docid": "271920",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\""
},
{
"docid": "356388",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\""
},
{
"docid": "499060",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\""
}
] |
3735 | Shorting Stocks And Margin Account Minimum | [
{
"docid": "266900",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "344065",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:"
},
{
"docid": "5253",
"title": "",
"text": "You buy something on margin. It goes down. You get a margin call. It's not more complex than that. The value of your account has to be X% of the asset you control. The fact that the ETF is bull, bear, triple long/short, doesn't really matter."
},
{
"docid": "565432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\""
},
{
"docid": "5573",
"title": "",
"text": "Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account."
},
{
"docid": "1203",
"title": "",
"text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account."
},
{
"docid": "206342",
"title": "",
"text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process."
},
{
"docid": "473658",
"title": "",
"text": "ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:"
},
{
"docid": "340125",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\""
},
{
"docid": "584291",
"title": "",
"text": "You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account."
},
{
"docid": "114054",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\""
},
{
"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": "271920",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\""
},
{
"docid": "356726",
"title": "",
"text": "You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other."
},
{
"docid": "283982",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "537418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest. Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling. When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any \"\"artificial\"\" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls. Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short \"\"squeeze\"\", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest. Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect. If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction. Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity. Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price. If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point.\""
},
{
"docid": "366484",
"title": "",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them."
},
{
"docid": "501214",
"title": "",
"text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:"
},
{
"docid": "171784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\""
},
{
"docid": "543811",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\""
}
] |
3735 | Shorting Stocks And Margin Account Minimum | [
{
"docid": "314478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "254474",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\""
},
{
"docid": "202985",
"title": "",
"text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility."
},
{
"docid": "206342",
"title": "",
"text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process."
},
{
"docid": "569303",
"title": "",
"text": "I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping."
},
{
"docid": "93231",
"title": "",
"text": "quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees."
},
{
"docid": "122485",
"title": "",
"text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal."
},
{
"docid": "218904",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, 6% is a waste of money, because some other brokers such as IB offer margin rates below 2%. Also, to borrow money for even less than any broker's margin interest rate, one can do an EFP transaction. This involves simultaneously shorting a stock and buying the SSF for the same stock. When the futures contract expires, you take delivery of the underlying stock to automatically close out your short position. Until then, you've effectively borrowed cash for the cost of borrowing the stock, which is typically less than 0.5% interest for widely traded ones. You also pay for the slight difference in price between the stock and the future, which is typically equivalent to another 0.5% interest or less. The total often comes to less than 1% interest. The only risk with this transaction is that the stock could become hard to borrow at some point, so then you would have to pay higher interest on it temporarily or maybe even have to close out your short early. But it is extremely rare for large, high-volume stocks to become hard-to-borrow. The borrowing cost of SPY has spiked above 5% on only a handful of days in the last decade."
},
{
"docid": "115918",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\""
},
{
"docid": "533408",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\""
},
{
"docid": "331606",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "591694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\""
},
{
"docid": "469830",
"title": "",
"text": "Most brokers have a margin maintenance requirement of 30%. In your example, it would depend on how much money you're borrowing from your broker on margin. Consider this: You have $250, and short AAPL at $500 on margin. This would be a common scenario (federal law requires investors to have at least 50% of their margin equity when opening a transaction). If your broker had a requirement of 30%, they would require that for your $500 position, you have at least $500 * .3 = $150 equity. Since you are currently above that number at $250, you will not be hit with a margin call. Say the price of AAPL doubles, and now your position is worth $1000. $1000 * .3 = $300, which is $50 above your initial equity. Your broker will now consider you eligible for a margin call. Most will not execute the call right away, you will often have some time to either sell/cover stock or add funds to your account. But not all brokers will warn you if you are breaking margin requirements, and sometimes margin calls can take you by surprise if you are not paying attention. Also, many will charge interest on extra margin borrowed."
},
{
"docid": "366484",
"title": "",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them."
},
{
"docid": "125659",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "171784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\""
},
{
"docid": "292159",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\""
},
{
"docid": "340125",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\""
},
{
"docid": "459311",
"title": "",
"text": "The fact base evidence is reinforcing the understanding that dramatic increases in minimum wage is detrimental in the short and long term for marginal workers. I suppose we can stick on head in the sand but I would rather call it the way it is. The politicians jumping up and down demanding increased minimum wages are only looking for the short-term publicity. By time everyone realizes it was a rotten deal the politicians will be long gone."
},
{
"docid": "113786",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\""
}
] |
3759 | Simplifying money management | [
{
"docid": "527966",
"title": "",
"text": "Track your spending and expected income -- on paper, or with a personal-finance program. If you know how much is committed, you know how much is available. Trivial with checks, requires a bit more discipline with credit cards."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "198732",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\""
},
{
"docid": "492913",
"title": "",
"text": "To thrive in this new dynamic, clients partner with ITC Infotech to create a modernized ERP system through seamless upgrades and effective business process mapping, with automation and analysis of information exchange at an enterprise level. ITC Infotech applied digitaligence ensures standardized processes and a simplified user experience for clients."
},
{
"docid": "83059",
"title": "",
"text": "Consider the following scenario at a small business: As a business owner I have 10k in the bank at the moment. I have a one time expense of 4k that will not directly impact the growth of my business. I can choose to pay the 4k out of the 10 in the bank and then put the rest towards business growth. Assuming a 10% annual return on capital at the end of this transaction I am left with $6,600. Now if instead I chose to pay the 4k with a business credit card I have that only carries a 7.9% interest rate what would happen is that I incur a 4k balance that I have to pay off in a year and put 10k towards my business. Now, this is a simplified case that does not take into account the effective interest on the card and the minimum monthly payments. That being said, what happens in the end of the year is that I owe $4316 to my credit card but I now have 11k in the bank, due to business growth. That leaves me with $6,684 after a year's worth of operations, which is better than my original $6,600. This is a small scale scenario though, but the basic idea is that if you can put the money towards growth that is better than the interest you are paying to the card, you win. The risks of course include missing a payment and incurring a penalty, not being able to grow your money at the rate you thought, and so on. Hope this explains things a bit."
},
{
"docid": "219910",
"title": "",
"text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light."
},
{
"docid": "14488",
"title": "",
"text": "Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?"
},
{
"docid": "195526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the \"\"double\"\" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered.\""
},
{
"docid": "368377",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the biggest blunder I see in money handling. \"\"Oh I'm a good person and everyone knows my intentions are good. And they're really happy with me right now, so it'll stay that way forever, right? So I can just do anything and they'll trust me.\"\" And then in hindsight 10 years later, the person realizes \"\"wow, I was really stubborn and selfish to just assume that. No wonder it blew up.\"\" Anyway, to that end, your requirement that all the money be in one account and \"\"this will simplify taxes\"\" is horsepuckey. No one will believe a legitimate financial advisor needs that, but it's exactly what a swindler would do. And that's the problem. If anything goes wrong, their trust in you will be forgotten, some will say you intended to scam all along, and the structure will be the first thing to convict you. Money makes everyone mistrusting. Ironically, the concept is called a \"\"trust\"\", and there's a wide body of law and practice for Person X responsibly handling the money of Person Y. The classic example is Person Y is a corporation (say, a charity) and Person X is on the Board of Directors. It's the same basic thing. The doctrine is:\""
},
{
"docid": "386774",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> So.... If everybody took your advice, how would you ever be able to hire other people? I never said every single person needs to open a business. I said we need more entrepreneurs. Your example is implausible, unrealistic, over-simplified, and not at all what I suggested. I just find it hysterical that I get down-voted to hell for suggesting that we teach kids that there are other options besides \"\"get a job\"\", and that anyone can start their own business and actually *provide* jobs, improving their local economy. But, fuck that I guess. Go upvote the guy who says the government should just be giving out free money to everyone. Yea, that makes much more sense in the long term growth of our economy. *facepalm* This ignorance in this subreddit is astounding.\""
},
{
"docid": "577323",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early. Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree? Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings? I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time. First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while). How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%! It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors. Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, \"\"Concentration is the key to wealth\"\" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life. This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior. Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows.\""
},
{
"docid": "96796",
"title": "",
"text": "That's a simplified, layman's argument that you have minunderstood. Inflation has nothing to do with prices of goods, but rather the purchasing power of the money itself. It sounds like the same thing, but the subtle difference is crucial to understanding monetary policy. Look at the counterexample: in places with super high inflation, like Venezuela, people spend their entire paycheck the minute they get it, because it's value is declining. If you don't know that gasoline is an inelastic product, I really can't help you without devoting significant amounts of time to helping you understand a subject that is frequently counterintuitive and hard to understand. You should probably take an economics class. It's fascinating stuff. Suffice to say, literally everyone who studies this stuff agrees that a small amount of controlled inflation is beneficial to keeping money moving rapidly around the economy, spurring growth and activity in production of goods and services. High inflation is very bad. Hyperinflation is worse. Deflation is the worst, though it sounds great to people who don't know what they are talking about. Econ 101. Take it. Love it."
},
{
"docid": "176254",
"title": "",
"text": "The earlier answers answered the question on how a more practical trader can lose money. Here I'd like to mention some obtuse ways Using debt to buy stocks. If one is borrowing at a higher rate than they are getting back, from an economics prospective their stocks are losing money even if the value of those stocks are going up. Using debt to buy stocks. I'll simplify the nightmare situation. I know someone who has Y dollars of cash. Their broker will loan them X. With their X+Y money, they purchase some equities through the broker. The agreement of the loan is that if the value of those equities drops below a certain percentage of the outstanding debt (ex 150%), the broker will automatically and without notification, sell some equities indiscriminately to reduce the outstanding debt. Being in high-interest debt but buying stocks. There are millions of people who are paying 15+% interest rates on consumer debt while investing and getting 5% returns or less on average. Similar to an earlier point, from an economics prospective the choice to buy equities is a profit losing choice."
},
{
"docid": "145353",
"title": "",
"text": "One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party."
},
{
"docid": "226691",
"title": "",
"text": "They didn't double profits by simplifying the menu. They completely slashed all their expenses (forcing corporate employees to work double while training their replacements for half the price, etc) 3G is known for this. Hence the 33 year old CEO, they take everyone senior work them until they quit and replace them with kids who make almost nothing."
},
{
"docid": "478914",
"title": "",
"text": "Kentstruction with our many years of experience can build the Custom Home Builder Long Island of your dreams. We can help you go from the stage to the actual design, building and final moving in. Simplifying this project will ease the entire process."
},
{
"docid": "110729",
"title": "",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though."
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "405206",
"title": "",
"text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem."
},
{
"docid": "234935",
"title": "",
"text": "I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged."
},
{
"docid": "384067",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Windows RT in general was a huge fuckup. \"\"Let's remake Windows Mobile so that it doesn't run any previously existing software, then make WIndows 8 resemble that single-tasking, touchscreen-centric design for no goddamn reason, and *then* bring resurrect Windows CE's bony corpse as the unholy midpoint of those two terrible decisions.\"\" Intel Atom smartphones came out like a month after the Surface. Why the fuck aren't Windows Phones running actual Windows with a simplified userland and the specs of an eight-year-old laptop? If the Surface Pro makes sense without a keyboard, then why the hell wouldn't I want my smartphone to leverage the hundreds of applications I already know and trust? Microsoft's rushing to embrace and exploit Apple's walled garden, but they could destroy it completely if my next smartphone could just play movies and view PDFs without having to pay money or look at ads.\""
}
] |
3759 | Simplifying money management | [
{
"docid": "67167",
"title": "",
"text": "Many banks will allow you to open multiple accounts. Create a secondary checking account that has no automatic withdrawals and doesn't allow overdraft. This is the account you'll use for you discretionary spending. Get an account with a debit card and always use it as a debit card (never as a credit card, even if it allows that). Your employer may allow you to split your direct deposit so that a certain amount of money goes into this account each month. When it gets to $0, you have to stop spending. It will automatically refill when you get your paycheck."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "315126",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "153033",
"title": "",
"text": "Conserve precious time, cash, and energy by way of simplifying your kitchen area. Silicone baking mats take the place of food preparation sprays and parchment paper, so you have less to purchase as well as a lot fewer preparation steps. With 4,000 uses prior to buying a replacement, these baking mat sets pay for themselves time and time again."
},
{
"docid": "83059",
"title": "",
"text": "Consider the following scenario at a small business: As a business owner I have 10k in the bank at the moment. I have a one time expense of 4k that will not directly impact the growth of my business. I can choose to pay the 4k out of the 10 in the bank and then put the rest towards business growth. Assuming a 10% annual return on capital at the end of this transaction I am left with $6,600. Now if instead I chose to pay the 4k with a business credit card I have that only carries a 7.9% interest rate what would happen is that I incur a 4k balance that I have to pay off in a year and put 10k towards my business. Now, this is a simplified case that does not take into account the effective interest on the card and the minimum monthly payments. That being said, what happens in the end of the year is that I owe $4316 to my credit card but I now have 11k in the bank, due to business growth. That leaves me with $6,684 after a year's worth of operations, which is better than my original $6,600. This is a small scale scenario though, but the basic idea is that if you can put the money towards growth that is better than the interest you are paying to the card, you win. The risks of course include missing a payment and incurring a penalty, not being able to grow your money at the rate you thought, and so on. Hope this explains things a bit."
},
{
"docid": "14488",
"title": "",
"text": "Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?"
},
{
"docid": "413742",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's weird, because I think of money managers as people who \"\"manage money\"\". Based on the history of the Medallion Fund, the fund seems to consistently turn money into \"\"more\"\" money, and rarely seems to turn it into \"\"less\"\" money, which seems to indicate that it's pretty good at \"\"managing\"\" the \"\"money\"\" that it's been entrusted with.\""
},
{
"docid": "384067",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Windows RT in general was a huge fuckup. \"\"Let's remake Windows Mobile so that it doesn't run any previously existing software, then make WIndows 8 resemble that single-tasking, touchscreen-centric design for no goddamn reason, and *then* bring resurrect Windows CE's bony corpse as the unholy midpoint of those two terrible decisions.\"\" Intel Atom smartphones came out like a month after the Surface. Why the fuck aren't Windows Phones running actual Windows with a simplified userland and the specs of an eight-year-old laptop? If the Surface Pro makes sense without a keyboard, then why the hell wouldn't I want my smartphone to leverage the hundreds of applications I already know and trust? Microsoft's rushing to embrace and exploit Apple's walled garden, but they could destroy it completely if my next smartphone could just play movies and view PDFs without having to pay money or look at ads.\""
},
{
"docid": "586096",
"title": "",
"text": "My 2 cents:As I understand it, stochastic math doesn't seem to cut it for pricing derivatives. Ito's Lemma and Feynman-Kac SDE solutions both impose constraints on higher order moments of the PDF. So you can't just drop in your forecasted return distribution and get a price. All the fixes seem somewhat ad hoc. Shit gets real when you move from options to their first cousin: term structure of interest rates. The Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework was intractable in the original paper, but there are some promising simplifying assumptions. I think there's real money there for someone who works that out and comes up with new arbitrage possibilities. On the other hand, you get some phenomenally bad math like the Gaussian copula that was used to value the subprime tranches and bring them a mind-boggling AAA rating. A lot of folks here do fancy nonlinear time series analysis to forecast the 1st, 2nd & higher moments of asset returns. Not a lot of theoretical basis (well neuroscience), but if you can do it better you win."
},
{
"docid": "226691",
"title": "",
"text": "They didn't double profits by simplifying the menu. They completely slashed all their expenses (forcing corporate employees to work double while training their replacements for half the price, etc) 3G is known for this. Hence the 33 year old CEO, they take everyone senior work them until they quit and replace them with kids who make almost nothing."
},
{
"docid": "385704",
"title": "",
"text": "A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives."
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "465497",
"title": "",
"text": "Can you provide me some evidence of all these $100k+/yr financial blogging jobs? Because you in no way over simplified what it takes to get to that level of blogging... If I'm wrong please show me how I can do that. I'm sure a lot of people here would be interested in knowing as well."
},
{
"docid": "176308",
"title": "",
"text": "1. it's easy to make a 1000+ powerpoint when every other slide has just one word. 2. the goal of powerpoint is to simplify -- not drag-out to 1000's of clicks. still... props for selling his company -- that's quite an accomplishment in an of itself."
},
{
"docid": "227910",
"title": "",
"text": "For providing financing assistance to the clients, Invoice Finance and Factoring Services are provided by some recognized professional financial services providers in London. They can help in improving cash flows and credit control. Before applying for loans, a business has to undergo the lengthy processes and legal formalities. To simplify these procedures, Forfaiting Financial Services in London are provided to many organizations."
},
{
"docid": "212831",
"title": "",
"text": "Read the game of numbers by nick Murray. You have to find money to call yourself a money manager and most of the job is sales. You won't stay in business if you're bad at managing it, but step #1 is finding something to manage. Hani"
},
{
"docid": "281329",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps there is no single formula that accounts for all the time intervals, but there is a method to get formulas for each compound interest period. You deposit money monthly but there is interest applied weekly. Let's assume the month has 4 weeks. So you added x in the end of the first month, when the new month starts, you have x money in your account. After one week, you have x + bx money. After the second week, you have x + b(x + bx) and so on. Always taking the previous ammount of money and multiplying it by the interest (b) you have. This gives you for the end of the second month: This looks complicated, but it's easy for computers. Call it f(0), that is: It is a function that gives you the ammount of money you would obtain by the end of the second month. Do you see that the future money inputs are given with relation to the previous ones? Then we can do the following, for n>1 (notice the x is the end of the formula, it's the deposit of money in the end of the month, I'm assuming it'll pass through the compound interest only in the first week of the next month): And then write: There is something in mathematics called recurrence relation in which we can use these two formulas to produce a simplified one for arbitrary b and n. Doing it by hand would be a bit complicated, but fortunately CASes are able to do it easily. I used Wolfram Mathematica commands: And it gave me the following formula: All the work you actually have to do is to figure out what will be f(0) and then write the f(n) for n>0 in terms of f(n-1). Notice that I used the command FullSimplify in my code, Mathematica comes with algorithms for simplyfing formulas so if it didn't find something simpler, you probably won't find it by yourself! If the code looks ugly, it's because of Mathematica clipboard formatting, in the software, it looks like this: Notice that I wrote the entire formula for f(0), but as it's also a recurrence relation, it can be written as: That is: f(0)=g(4). This should give you much simpler formulas to apply in this method."
},
{
"docid": "219910",
"title": "",
"text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light."
},
{
"docid": "195526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the \"\"double\"\" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered.\""
}
] |
3759 | Simplifying money management | [
{
"docid": "522358",
"title": "",
"text": "Personally, I have a little checkbook program that I use to keep track of my spending and balance. Like you -- and I presume like most people -- I have certain recurring bills: the mortgage, insurance payments, car payment, etc. I simply enter these into the checkbook program about a month before the bill is due. Then I can run a transaction list that shows the date, amount, and remaining balance after each transaction. So if I want to know how much money I really have available to spend, I just look for the last transaction before my next payday, and see what the balance will be on that day. Personally, I always keep a certain amount of pad in my account so if I made a mistake and entered an incorrect amount for a check, or forgot to enter one completely, I don't overdraw the account. (I like to keep $1000 in such padding but that's way more than really necessary, it's very rare that I make a mistake of more than $100.) In my case, I don't enter electric bills or heating bills because I don't know the amount until I get the bill, and the amounts fall well within my padding, and for just two bills I can factor them in in my head. BTW I wrote this program myself but I'm sure there are similar products on the market. I used to use a spreadsheet and that worked pretty well. (Mainly I wrote the program because I have a tiny side business that I have to keep tax records for even though it makes almost no money.) You could in principle do it on paper, but the catch to that is that when you write payments on your paper ledger in advance of actually writing the check, you will often be writing down payments out of order, and so it becomes difficult to see what your balance is or was or will be on any given date. But a computer system can easily accept transactions out of order and then sort them and re-do the balance calculations in a fraction of a second."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "303931",
"title": "",
"text": "Silvrback is an alternative blogging platform offering a simple but impactful blog posting option. With simple features to start with Silvrback cuts the jargon and distractions so that you can focus on your real work. The platform is easy to use, ads free, secure and provides complete freedom as far as creating the content goes. With best minimalistic features Silvrback simplifies your blogging and posting needs."
},
{
"docid": "219910",
"title": "",
"text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light."
},
{
"docid": "70194",
"title": "",
"text": "Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance."
},
{
"docid": "586096",
"title": "",
"text": "My 2 cents:As I understand it, stochastic math doesn't seem to cut it for pricing derivatives. Ito's Lemma and Feynman-Kac SDE solutions both impose constraints on higher order moments of the PDF. So you can't just drop in your forecasted return distribution and get a price. All the fixes seem somewhat ad hoc. Shit gets real when you move from options to their first cousin: term structure of interest rates. The Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework was intractable in the original paper, but there are some promising simplifying assumptions. I think there's real money there for someone who works that out and comes up with new arbitrage possibilities. On the other hand, you get some phenomenally bad math like the Gaussian copula that was used to value the subprime tranches and bring them a mind-boggling AAA rating. A lot of folks here do fancy nonlinear time series analysis to forecast the 1st, 2nd & higher moments of asset returns. Not a lot of theoretical basis (well neuroscience), but if you can do it better you win."
},
{
"docid": "2860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not aware that any US bank has any way to access your credit rating in France (especially as you basically don't have one!). In the US, banks are not the only way to get finance for a home. In many regions, there are plenty of \"\"owner financed\"\" or \"\"Owner will carry\"\" homes. For these, the previous owner will provide a private mortgage for the balance if you have a large (25%+) downpayment. No strict lending rules, no fancy credit scoring systems, just a large enough downpayment so they know they'll get their money back if they have to foreclose. For the seller, it's a way to shift a house that is hard to sell plus get a regular income. Often this mortgage is for only 3-10 years, but that gives you the time to establish more credit and then refinance. Maybe the interest rate is a little higher also, but again it's just until you can refinance to something better (or sell other assets then pay the loan off quick). For new homes, the builders/developers may offer similar finance. For both owner-will-carry and developer finance, a large deposit will trump any credit rating concerns. There is usually a simplified foreclosure process, so they're not really taking much of a risk, so can afford to be flexible. Make sure the owner mortgage is via a title company, trust company, or escrow company, so that there's a third party involved to ensure each party lives up to their obligations.\""
},
{
"docid": "12331",
"title": "",
"text": "\"China's chief central banker warned markets are fully valued and therefore susceptible to a drastic price correction - triggered by a wide-spread, simultaneous reversal of opinion in the markets. Basically the point when the \"\"Greater Fool\"\" phenomenon ends and and selling pressure spikes as everyone starts getting out because they think everyone is. Simplified af but thats the laymen interpration of a minsky moment.\""
},
{
"docid": "419298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is playing the lottery a wise investment? --Probably not. Is playing the lottery an investment at all? --Probably not though I'll make a remark on that further below. Does it make any sense to play the lottery in order to improve your total asset allocation? --If you follow the theory of the Black Swan, it actually might. Let me elaborate. The Black Swan theory says that events that we consider extremely improbable can have an extreme impact. So extreme, in fact, that its value would massively outweigh the combined value of all impacts of all probable events together. In statistical terms, we are speaking about events on the outer limits of the common probablity distribution, so called outliers that have a high impact. Example: If you invest $2000 on the stock market today, stay invested for 20 years, and reinvest all earnings, it is probable within a 66% confidence interval that you will have an 8 % expected return (ER) per year on average, giving you a total of roughly $9300. That's very much simplified, of course, the actual number can be very different depending on the deviations from the ER and when they happen. Now let's take the same $2000 and buy weekly lottery tickets for 20 years. For the sake of simplicity I will forgo an NPV calculation and assume one ticket costs roughly $2. If you should win, which would be an entirely improbable event, your winnings would by far outweigh your ER from investing the same amount. When making models that should be mathematically solvable, these outliers are usually not taken into consideration. Standard portfolio management (PM) theory is only working within so called confidence intervals up to 99% - everything else just wouldn't be practical. In other words, if there is not at least a 1% probability a certain outcome will happen, we'll ignore it. In practice, most analysts take even smaller confidence intervals, so they ignore even more. That's the reason, though, why no object that would fall within the realms of this outer limit is an investment in terms of the PM theory. Or at least not a recommendable one. Having said all that, it still might improve your position if you add a lottery ticket to the mix. The Black Swan theory specifically does not only apply to the risk side of things, but also on the chance side. So, while standard PM theory would not consider the lottery ticket an investment, thus not accept it into the asset allocation, the Black Swan theory would appreciate the fact that there is minimal chance of huge success. Still, in terms of valuation, it follows the PM theory. The lottery ticket, while it could be part of some \"\"investment balance sheet\"\", would have to be written off to 0 immediately and no expected value would be attached to it. Consequently, such an investment or gamble only makes sense if your other, safe investments give you so much income that you can easily afford it really without having to give up anything else in your life. In other words, you have to consider it money thrown out of the window. So, while from a psychological perspective it makes sense that especially poorer people will buy a lottery ticket, as Eric very well explained, it is actually the wealthier who should consider doing so. If anyone. :)\""
},
{
"docid": "384631",
"title": "",
"text": "Correct. But he was over simplifying the problem so I wanted to keep it simple myself. There's a whole lot of moving parts in this problem. And no one really knows the implications so I kept it to what is generally accepted."
},
{
"docid": "248342",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Warning:** Really fucking simplified (like undergrad \"\"intro to corp finance\"\" simple). Tell them they are running a company. Say they just received a huge pile of cash (end of year earnings or some shit). Tell them they have two options: * Invest the money to expand current operations (say they make footballs) and continue making 10% ROE or w/e return their current operations make. * Invest the money into a new project, say expanding products and making soccer balls. Now ask them what rate of return from soccer balls would they need to receive to make it justifiable to pursue that project instead of just putting that cash back in footballs? I mean, ask them if they received only a 5% ROE from soccer balls, would it make sense to produce them instead of expanding football production? The required rate of return on the soccer ball project would be whatever return they'd make from their other project option (expanding football production).\""
},
{
"docid": "28375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\""
},
{
"docid": "182884",
"title": "",
"text": "Correct, kept orange demand in a microcosm to simplify. In the example, ~1 or 2 people would have been highly paid to build the machine, and the house would have created temp jobs for 2 or 3, or the money would have flowed to another tree owner and put into a bigger house. Point is the new inflow of money hasnt cycled through the economy fast enough to have an effect on consumptive demand. New money has a slower velocity with net effect on inflating asset prices up."
},
{
"docid": "389516",
"title": "",
"text": "An LLC is a pass-through entity in the USA, so profits and losses flow through to the individual's taxes. Thus an LLC has a separate TIN but the pass-through property greatly simplifies tax filings, as compared to the complicated filings required by C-corps."
},
{
"docid": "14488",
"title": "",
"text": "Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?"
},
{
"docid": "212831",
"title": "",
"text": "Read the game of numbers by nick Murray. You have to find money to call yourself a money manager and most of the job is sales. You won't stay in business if you're bad at managing it, but step #1 is finding something to manage. Hani"
},
{
"docid": "564898",
"title": "",
"text": "Your hypothetical money market account parallel basically nails it. You understand exactly how the math works. IRR computes a rate at which your money market account would have to pay interest in order to match whatever investment you are comparing to. That said, there are two major complicating factors to consider: Your hypothetical account would have to not only pay interest, but also lend money, at exactly the IRR rate. In reality of course, it never happens this way. You may be able to lend (invest) at x, but to borrow you're going to have to pay y. IRR simplifies away that issue in order to give us a single number. That number can be very handy for comparison to other competing hypothetical investments, but it does not capture that fundamental issue of lending rate vs. borrowing rate. An IRR calculation assumes implicitly that all cash flows, outgoing and incoming, are known and fixed; that is, risk-free. It makes no allowance whatever for risk, and all investments have some level of risk. Two investments that compute to the same IRR might have hugely different risk around their cashflows, and so not be a close decision at all. To compare those investments, you might go to a measure like RAROC-- risk-adjusted return on capital. But that's much harder, and more subjective, because it requires some numerical measurement of risk."
},
{
"docid": "93972",
"title": "",
"text": "Checks actually have a limited lifespan before the bank no longer has to honor them, which simplifies this question. After about 6 months you assume that check won't be cashed. If they find it after that, you write them a new check. If they don't, you really should pester them to do so."
},
{
"docid": "412071",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm a mathematician, not an accountant. But my feeling has been that the distinction between Asset and Liability is mainly a sign convention, and comes from a wish to avoid negative numbers. Suppose you take out a loan for $1000 and deposit the proceeds in your bank account. Under normal accounting conventions, your bank account is an Asset and the loan is a Liability. After the loan, Bank has a balance of 1000 and Loan has a balance of 1000. You can compute your net worth by adding all Assets and subtracting all Liabilities (so in this case your net worth remains 0). If you treat Loan as an Asset account, then after taking out the loan, you should give it a balance of -1000. Under this convention, you have lots of negative numbers to deal with everywhere, which I suspect early accountants would have found inconvenient. The Asset/Liability convention means you only need to deal with negative numbers in unusual situations (overdrawn bank account, overpaid loan, etc). Likewise, in theory you could treat Expense accounts as negative Income. But I'm not sure why you feel the need to reinvent the wheel by \"\"simplifying\"\" double-entry accounting like this. The standard conventions are not that complicated, and their major advantage is that they're standard: other people will be able to understand your books if they ever need to. (Say you want to hire somebody to do your taxes at some point: if your books are kept in your own idiosyncratic system, their job will be at best error-prone and at worst impossible.) It's a bit like a proposal to simplify English spelling: shur, a sistum waar yu rit lik this mit bee simplur in sum abstrakt sens, but if nobudee els can reed it eezulee, it izunt ackshyualee veree yusful.\""
},
{
"docid": "96796",
"title": "",
"text": "That's a simplified, layman's argument that you have minunderstood. Inflation has nothing to do with prices of goods, but rather the purchasing power of the money itself. It sounds like the same thing, but the subtle difference is crucial to understanding monetary policy. Look at the counterexample: in places with super high inflation, like Venezuela, people spend their entire paycheck the minute they get it, because it's value is declining. If you don't know that gasoline is an inelastic product, I really can't help you without devoting significant amounts of time to helping you understand a subject that is frequently counterintuitive and hard to understand. You should probably take an economics class. It's fascinating stuff. Suffice to say, literally everyone who studies this stuff agrees that a small amount of controlled inflation is beneficial to keeping money moving rapidly around the economy, spurring growth and activity in production of goods and services. High inflation is very bad. Hyperinflation is worse. Deflation is the worst, though it sounds great to people who don't know what they are talking about. Econ 101. Take it. Love it."
},
{
"docid": "414188",
"title": "",
"text": "FYI...prices don't always go up. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. I'm simplifying greatly here: if more money is printed (or the money supply increases through fractional reserve banking) and it is chasing the same amount of goods then prices will go up. Conversely, if money is held constant and the economy becomes more productive, producing more goods, then a constant amount of money is chasing an increasing amount of goods and prices go down. After the Civil War the greenback went back to being on a gold standard in 1879. After 1879 greenbacks could be redeemed for gold. Gold restricts money growth since it is difficult to obtain. Here are the price and wage indexes from 1869 - 1889 (from here): Notice from 1879 to 1889 that wholesale and consumer prices fall but wages start to increase. Imagine your salary staying the same (or even increasing) but the prices of items falling. Still don't think inflation is a monetary phenomenon? Here is a CPI chart from 1800 to 2007: Notice how the curve starts to go drastically up around 1970. What happen then? The US dollar went off the gold-exchange standard and the US dollar became a purely fiat currency backed by nothing but government decree which allows the Federal Reserve to print money ad nauseum."
}
] |
3767 | What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "368679",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "534124",
"title": "",
"text": "If possible, I would disable online payment on the card, immediately (reduce the limit of online payment to zero). I think you should also demand the photocopy back, immediately. It is tad confrontational, and maybe he did get it without any ill will, but even in this case, he should be made aware of the fact that this is wrong. Note that if he genuinely did it with ill will, he will have likely made multiple copies (who knows how many), so it will not really protect you from fraud (in this case). Then you should call or e-mail the card company (and/or your bank) and tell them what happened. I think they would consider the card stolen and maybe advise you on what you should do next. Note that if he uses the card, you might (and should) try to chargeback the money (through the card company), but it might be argued that you did not sufficiently protect the details of your card. And even if you succeed, the process can be long and you will not have access to your money in the meantime (this is one of the downsides of a debit card vs credit card...). You may also consider moving away the money from the associated bank account (so that there's not much to steal). Of course, the situation (on that front) gets more complicated if account overdrawing is enabled in your account."
},
{
"docid": "556549",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Careful with the \"\"stock stolen from your account\"\" thing. SIPC protects investors against broker/dealer insolvency. Don't think they provide protection against theft.\""
},
{
"docid": "14317",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no common sense in Michigan and money does reveal character. Take a Michigan based business for example of more outrageous behavior that our State reps overlook. Frankenmuth Insurance company located in Frankenmuth Michigan purports in its commitment statement to policyholders to: Frankenmuth Insurance built a solid foundation adhering to its fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, unsurpassed customer service and conservative business practices. With much emphasis on Corporate Governance and common sense, this company located in Frankenmuth Michigan regularly violates its own commitment to policyholders by engaging in egregious conflicts of interest with board members that not only lack integrity, but are of blatant poor judgment for personal gain and detrimental to policyholders. The only policyholders invited to their annual policyholder meetings are employees and retirees of the company so that no one will vote against or challenge their elections. The board members are taken on annual trips with their spouses the week of the annual board meeting wherein on the last day, they (the board) are asked to vote on executive pay and bonuses. After a week of being wined and dined at exclusive resorts such as the One and Only Palmilla in Cabo and the Winn in Vegas the Frankenmuth executives know that the board will give them exorbitant raises and bonuses which is information they again refuse to disclose because of the public outrage their behavior would cause, adversely impacting their business. Getting what they want from the board afforded CEO Stanton a 12,000 sq foot retirement home newly constructed on a 1 million dollar plot of land at Bay Harbor overlooking Lake Michigan. One trip that Frankenmuth executives took 90 people on (those people were executives and spouses and agents and spouses) cost 5 million dollars for one week. That translates to about $53K per person. Bill Schutte pretends to care about the taxpayers dollars and how they are spent yet he thus far has refused to require Frankenmuth to disclose it's egregious spending of lavish trips and entertainment and or investigate the clear conflicts of interest with its board that are costing the taxpayers of Michigan huge dollars in increased premiums. On top of all of this, Frankenmuth admittedly has a computer system that does not track its employees use of policyholder information meaning the public is not safe from potential identity theft nor is the company safe from internal theft. Frankenmuth uses credit reports to jack prices of policyholders up - someones credit has no bearing on their ability to drive and the executives are laughing all the way to the bank with the board in their pocket from canned elections."
},
{
"docid": "444624",
"title": "",
"text": "I've been doing this exact thing for almost 2 years using the Amazon app. What I don't understand is why they came out with this new app which scans barcodes or pictures to show you items on Amazon? This is already in the Amazon app. They're basically identical apps, why are there two apps, can I get the discount in the primary app or should I uninstall that and use this identical app now?"
},
{
"docid": "470024",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft."
},
{
"docid": "581889",
"title": "",
"text": "First thing to do when you notice a credit card fraud is to call the respective banks who issues the credit card and most banks immediately (as far as my experience goes - twice) they will cancel the credit card and issue a new card with different number. Your credit card account will remain the same, no effect on credit score as the account is still active, its just the credit card number is changed. If you are more concerned about Identity Theft, there are two further options you can pursue. Place a Fraud Alert : Ask 1 of the 3 credit reporting companies to put a fraud alert on your credit report. They must tell the other 2 companies. An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. The alert lasts 90 days but you can renew it. - as per Federal Trade Commission Credit Freeze : If you’re concerned about identity theft, those reported mega-data breaches, or someone gaining access to your credit report without your permission, you might consider placing a credit freeze on your report. - as per Federal Trade Commission"
},
{
"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-/ > 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? >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": "390673",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I consider myself a fairly successful person, and I think that I've made a lot of good decisions to help me get there. What strikes me is how often, in retrospect, I was making those good decisions based on incorrect or insufficient information. Further, I really had *no way* of knowing at the time that my reasoning was lacking. It would be attribution error to ignore these instances and pretend like I have overwhelmingly good judgment. I've seen other people act on the basis of similarly poor information - when it doesn't work out, the typical reaction is something like \"\"I feel no sympathy since you made a terrible decision. You should have known better.\"\" Please see any thread on the current student debt crisis, and you will see examples of what I mean. We are all, even the geniuses among us (I do not count myself as one, but I do believe I know a few), fallible. Lewis isn't suggesting we should feel guilty about success, or feel like somehow we don't deserve prosperity. His point is rather that we will never have earned the right to be greedy, that we always have a duty to those less fortunate.\""
},
{
"docid": "530631",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\""
},
{
"docid": "244973",
"title": "",
"text": "It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police. So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie. In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full. Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true. It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her. But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again."
},
{
"docid": "329620",
"title": "",
"text": "The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that. Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question : Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back."
},
{
"docid": "584788",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Protected class** In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. The following characteristics are \"\"protected\"\" by federal law: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "556219",
"title": "",
"text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection)."
},
{
"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": "157751",
"title": "",
"text": "A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs."
},
{
"docid": "116630",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I took computer science in college so to be fair I can't call myself an engineer... I figured it wouldn't matter, but apparently engineer is a protected term. Which begs the question why 6 out of 7 computer science bachelor degrees in the university here don't officially make you an engineer. What are those web, application, software, systems, math orientated, game, \"\"general\"\", and art degrees are good for...? Or does no one know this and everyone is applying to engineer positions and being titled engineer without being one...? But you are correct. They do start at 60k. Funny thing though, I traded starting salary information with 6 different co-graduates. I actually got paid the most. 32-37k starting salary for associate in computer science.\""
},
{
"docid": "544084",
"title": "",
"text": "Im not gonna get into the rabit hole about the direction of this country dont have nearly enough time for that lol but i acrually agree with u on alot of what u said actually. >I have an issue with people using any drug everyday. But most people don't drink and get drunk daily. Do u find issue with a person having a beer or a couple glasses of wine every other day? Same applies to mj most users arent getting completely blasted everyday and i have sources to prove it if youre interested. >But to reply to what you said, things like alcohol have rules. You can't drink everywhere, you can't drink and drive, etc... There needs to be some rules for MJ. Not trying to be rude but you havent even done your research on mj laws in your own state. Prop 64 is almost identical to drinking laws so you're absolutely incorrect here >I'm completely okay with medicinal use, but most people don't use it in that way. Youre right but my point was alcohol is perfectly legal and offers no medicinal value isn't that a bit ridiculous? With all due respect man you dont seem like an unintelligent person but you are greatly misinformed about alot of this stuff. I think youre a bit hung up politcal divides conservative vs liberal. You'd greatly benefit from educating yourself on the matter of mj. There's a reason why many conservatives also support mj legalzation including myself. Id be willing to send u some credible information if you're interested."
},
{
"docid": "551747",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You would be facilitating identity theft. You would be risking people who disagree with your approach thinking you're foolish. Are you really going to gain enough from this decision to offset the risks? Can't you do the same thing with much less detail or a \"\"fantasy\"\" account?\""
},
{
"docid": "362670",
"title": "",
"text": "All transactions involving fraud or theft are void by their nature. Title to your money never changes hands. You are entitled by law to have assets stolen from you returned to you. In cases of negligence or broker malfeasance, lawsuits or SIPC protection are your primary recourse."
}
] |
3767 | What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "153922",
"title": "",
"text": "\"http://annualcreditreport.com gives you free access to your 3 credit bureau records. (Annual, not \"\"free\"\". The \"\"free\"\" guys will try to sell you something.)\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "522991",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What would be the consequences if they do realize their error some day in the far future? You've informed them of the error and they've informed you that nevertheless the points are yours and you should use them. So you have a couple of issues: have you made what your jurisdiction considers a reasonable effort to correct the mistake, and did the customer service rep actually have the authority to make such a large goodwill gesture as letting you keep all the points? The first is your legal responsibility (otherwise you're stealing), and you need to know specifically for your jurisdiction whether a phone call is sufficient. I can't tell you that. Maybe you should send them a letter, maybe you should wait until you've had written confirmation from them, maybe you're OK as you are. You might be able to get free advice from some body that helps with consumer issues (here in the UK you could ask Citizen's Advice). The second is beyond your ability to know for sure but it's not dishonest to work on the basis that what the company's proper representative tells you, is true. With the usual caveats that I'm not qualified to give legal advice: once told you've been clearly told that it's an intentional gift, I don't see any way you could be held to have done anything fraudulent if you then go about enjoying it. The worst case \"\"far future\"\" problem, I would expect, is that someone decides the gift was never legitimately made in the first place. In other words the company made two separate errors, first crediting the card and then telling you the erroneous points stand. In that case you might have to pay them back whatever you've spent on the card (beyond the points you're entitled to). To avoid this you'd need to establish what constitutes a binding gift in your jurisdiction, so that you can say \"\"no, the point balance was not erroneous and here's the legal reason why\"\", and pay them nothing. You might also need to consider any tax implications in receiving such a large gift, and of course before paying tax on it (if that's necessary) you'd probably want to bug them for confirmation in writing that it really is yours. If that written confirmation isn't forthcoming then so be it, they've rescinded the gift and I doubt you're inclined to take them to court demanding that they stand by the words of their rep. Use them and play stupid. It's not my duty to check their math, right? That's potentially fraud or theft if you lie. You did notice, and even worse they have proof you noticed since you made the call. So never say you didn't notice. If you hadn't called them (yet), then you've been given something in error, and your jurisdiction will have an opinion on what your responsibilities are. So if you hadn't already called them, I would strongly suggest that you should call them or write to them about it to give them the opportunity to correct the error, or at least seek assurance that in your jurisdiction all errors in the customer's favour are final. Otherwise you're in the position of them accidentally handing you their wallet without realising, and you deciding to keep it without telling them. My guess is, that's unlikely to be a legally binding gift, and might legally be theft or fraud on your part.\""
},
{
"docid": "534124",
"title": "",
"text": "If possible, I would disable online payment on the card, immediately (reduce the limit of online payment to zero). I think you should also demand the photocopy back, immediately. It is tad confrontational, and maybe he did get it without any ill will, but even in this case, he should be made aware of the fact that this is wrong. Note that if he genuinely did it with ill will, he will have likely made multiple copies (who knows how many), so it will not really protect you from fraud (in this case). Then you should call or e-mail the card company (and/or your bank) and tell them what happened. I think they would consider the card stolen and maybe advise you on what you should do next. Note that if he uses the card, you might (and should) try to chargeback the money (through the card company), but it might be argued that you did not sufficiently protect the details of your card. And even if you succeed, the process can be long and you will not have access to your money in the meantime (this is one of the downsides of a debit card vs credit card...). You may also consider moving away the money from the associated bank account (so that there's not much to steal). Of course, the situation (on that front) gets more complicated if account overdrawing is enabled in your account."
},
{
"docid": "412244",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a \"\"Bank correspondent\"\", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself. The bank employee to whom I talked obviously was unsure whether the transfer parameters were enough (obviously this was a very unusual situation for her), but she took the information from me, and I guess just passed it on to someone more knowledgable. The fee was something about $40. Another option that I might think of is her US bank issuing and mailing her a check for the whole sum, and she trying to cash it here in Russia. This is possible, but very few banks do cash checks here (Citibank Russia is among those that do). The bank will also charge a fee, and it will be comparable to transfer fee. Plus mailing anything is not quite reliable here. She would also have to consider whether she need to pay Russian taxes on this sum. If the sum is big and passes through a bank, I guess Russian tax police may find this out through and question her. If it is withdrawn from a VISA card, I think it will not be noticed, but even in this case she might be required to file a tax herself.\""
},
{
"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": "584788",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Protected class** In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. The following characteristics are \"\"protected\"\" by federal law: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "228858",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\""
},
{
"docid": "405153",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The various levels of government have laws determining what a protected class is. Federally, [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class) are the protected classes under federal law. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of any of those demographics. On the state and local level, many states have additional protections. For example, my home state of IL explicitly forbids discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, classes which are not explicitly forbidden on the federal level. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, so long as you're not inciting violence. (That caveat is very murky and I am not qualified enough to speak on what is and isn't inciting violence from a legal perspective, I just know that the caveat exists) The key distinction that I think a lot of people misunderstand and are confused about is that, while hate speech is protected under the first amendment like all other forms of speech, it is not a protected class. Meaning, I can say whatever hateful rhetoric I want, but non government entities are free to discriminate against me. I can absolutely be fired if my employer finds out I am posting on Facebook advocating for the death of black lives matter activists, or saying stuff like \"\"terrorist immigrant rapists go home\"\" because political speech is not a protected class. I cannot be fired for posting a photo of my gay wedding (in IL), because in IL sexual orientation is a protected class. Does that make sense?\""
},
{
"docid": "498337",
"title": "",
"text": "Cash should never have been placed in the mailbox in the first place; this is what checks are for. I would be a bit surprised if that constitutes your accepting payment, but I Am Not A Lawyer. You need local legal advice; this is the sort of thing where local rulings matter. Definitely report the missing money to the police, no matter what else you do. You do not have to give them an opinion on whether this was a theft or an attempted fraud; just give them the facts that the tenant says they left money in the box but you didn't find it there."
},
{
"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": "362670",
"title": "",
"text": "All transactions involving fraud or theft are void by their nature. Title to your money never changes hands. You are entitled by law to have assets stolen from you returned to you. In cases of negligence or broker malfeasance, lawsuits or SIPC protection are your primary recourse."
},
{
"docid": "157751",
"title": "",
"text": "A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs."
},
{
"docid": "202457",
"title": "",
"text": "It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both."
},
{
"docid": "35736",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Also posting here to get answers 1) In pre-university education, what do I list along with my A levels? Are AS levels and GCSEs necessary? 2) Should i upload a degree transcript? (they say its optional hence why i'm asking) 3) Does the answer to \"\"How did you hear about JPM/GS/CS/BAML?\"\" affect your application? (moronic i know, but i thought better to know than to be clueless) 4) Do your answers to the equal opportunities form affect your application? (just want to know since its almost accepted now that if youre not a white male, your application will get scrutinised in some way depending on the reader, and i'm not white) 5) Following on from the previous question, my first name is Mohammad so should I consider changing my name on my CV and application forms? Again because of the bad press that Muslims get, and since Mohammad is such an obvious Muslim name. I also speak an Asian language so should i list that on my form/CV? I know this sounds like I want to hide my identity, but believe me it's the last thing I want to do. It's just something I feel like I might have to do. Nor do I want any sympathy for doing this. It's something a friend of mine suggested and I want to get people's opinions.\""
},
{
"docid": "444134",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The first question I have to ask is, why would your \"\"friend\"\" even be considering something so ridiculous? There are so many variations of the banking scam running around, and yet people can't seem to see them for what they are -- scams. The old saying \"\"there's no such thing as a free lunch\"\" really comes into play here. Why would anyone send you/your friend $3,000.00 just because they \"\"like you\"\"? If you can't come up with a rational answer to that question then you know what you (or your friend) should do -- walk away from any further contact with this person and never look back! Why? Well, the simple answer is, let's assume they DO send you $3,000.00 by some means. If you think there aren't strings attached then all hope is lost. This is a confidence scam, where the scammer wins your trust by doing something nobody would ever do if they were trying to defraud you. As a result, you feel like you can trust them, and that's when the games really begin. Ask yourself this -- How long do you think it will be (even assuming the money is sent) before they'll talk you into revealing little clues about yourself that allow them to develop a good picture of you? Could they be setting you up for some kind of identity theft scheme, or some other financial scam? Whatever it is, you'd better believe the returns for them far outweigh the $3,000.00 they're allegedly going to send, so in a sense, it's an investment for them in whatever they have planned for you down the road. PLEASE don't take the warnings you get about this lightly!!! Scams like this work because they always find a sucker. The fact that you're asking the question in the first place means you/your \"\"friend\"\" are giving serious thought to what was proposed, and that's nothing short of disaster if you do it. Leave it be, take the lesson for what it's worth before it costs you one red cent, and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "5860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The whole process was so absurd though. They asked me to scan and submit my ID (which I did). Then they told me they couldn't accept it because it wasn't real and was \"\"obviously downloaded from the internet.\"\" (lolwut.) I've never been so casually accused of identity theft before- that was interesting. So I took a picture of me holding the ID and sent that instead. Susan (the woman I was speaking with (dunno why I still remember that name)) said for \"\"security reasons\"\" I would have to wait three months and try again. Three months later they didn't even ask for ID.\""
},
{
"docid": "378432",
"title": "",
"text": "Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines."
},
{
"docid": "534294",
"title": "",
"text": "> ...if we can't trust people to know what they want... I'm not saying people don't know what they want. I am saying what people want is easy to influence and every large, successful company does so. > When you say that not being able to resist buying skittles is a serious problem, while there are still people living on the streets, I think you need some perspective. I think both problems have the same issues at their core -- what is best for corporate America is not always what is best for the greater good. > I'd wager that what you're seeing as you get older is the poverty trap... No, what I see is that people solve problems as best they can with the tools they have learned. People make bad choices because they have an incomplete and/or bad assortment of tools to use. For example, someone might be worse off in life because he/she never learned the value of good organization skills. Another example is one person in a couple being unable to trust his/her partner because everyone before was untrustworthy. > ...which is caused by barriers to expanding earnings... Just had to throw your primary assertion back in, didn't ya? /grin > I'd still like to know whether you believe you yourself need to be protected from these marketing practices... I do believe I need protection from company marketing practices. I also believe I need protection from their products, influences on the market, environmental impacts, and employee treatment. FYI, I don't believe impulse buying racks at stores should be illegal but I do think it is a great illustration of how a company caters to needs that are different than our true innate needs."
},
{
"docid": "292982",
"title": "",
"text": "For most, it's usually $30 to initially freeze ($10 x 3 major credit bureaus) then $30 in the future to unfreeze for a certain time frame each time you need a credit check, ie applying for a credit card, mortgage, auto lease. It may well be worth it to avoid thousands of dollars of losses from identity theft but still doesn't seem low cost to me. Looked into it but will take my chances. Equifax is super sketchy to not make at least their own freezing service free for life given their huge screwup. $20 for every credit check for the rest of my life would have been more reasonable but still a decent amount of money."
},
{
"docid": "97686",
"title": "",
"text": "Ask your bank to write a letter asserting that you have $xxxxx on deposit with them, on their letterhead? Though realistically, the chance of your getting hit with identity theft In this situation, when you presumably know exactly who you're dealing with, are vanishingly small."
}
] |
3767 | What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "392060",
"title": "",
"text": "Every 90 days add an Initial Fraud Alert to each of the 3 major credit bureaus."
}
] | [
{
"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": "329620",
"title": "",
"text": "The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that. Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question : Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back."
},
{
"docid": "556219",
"title": "",
"text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection)."
},
{
"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": "280667",
"title": "",
"text": "ICANN will protect you from theft but it might take months to sort out. I think the best ur gonna get is a registrar that supports 2fa. Setup auto pay of course and make sure registrar emails are valid/monitored. Why not just hand the domains yourself and charge them double."
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "544084",
"title": "",
"text": "Im not gonna get into the rabit hole about the direction of this country dont have nearly enough time for that lol but i acrually agree with u on alot of what u said actually. >I have an issue with people using any drug everyday. But most people don't drink and get drunk daily. Do u find issue with a person having a beer or a couple glasses of wine every other day? Same applies to mj most users arent getting completely blasted everyday and i have sources to prove it if youre interested. >But to reply to what you said, things like alcohol have rules. You can't drink everywhere, you can't drink and drive, etc... There needs to be some rules for MJ. Not trying to be rude but you havent even done your research on mj laws in your own state. Prop 64 is almost identical to drinking laws so you're absolutely incorrect here >I'm completely okay with medicinal use, but most people don't use it in that way. Youre right but my point was alcohol is perfectly legal and offers no medicinal value isn't that a bit ridiculous? With all due respect man you dont seem like an unintelligent person but you are greatly misinformed about alot of this stuff. I think youre a bit hung up politcal divides conservative vs liberal. You'd greatly benefit from educating yourself on the matter of mj. There's a reason why many conservatives also support mj legalzation including myself. Id be willing to send u some credible information if you're interested."
},
{
"docid": "522991",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What would be the consequences if they do realize their error some day in the far future? You've informed them of the error and they've informed you that nevertheless the points are yours and you should use them. So you have a couple of issues: have you made what your jurisdiction considers a reasonable effort to correct the mistake, and did the customer service rep actually have the authority to make such a large goodwill gesture as letting you keep all the points? The first is your legal responsibility (otherwise you're stealing), and you need to know specifically for your jurisdiction whether a phone call is sufficient. I can't tell you that. Maybe you should send them a letter, maybe you should wait until you've had written confirmation from them, maybe you're OK as you are. You might be able to get free advice from some body that helps with consumer issues (here in the UK you could ask Citizen's Advice). The second is beyond your ability to know for sure but it's not dishonest to work on the basis that what the company's proper representative tells you, is true. With the usual caveats that I'm not qualified to give legal advice: once told you've been clearly told that it's an intentional gift, I don't see any way you could be held to have done anything fraudulent if you then go about enjoying it. The worst case \"\"far future\"\" problem, I would expect, is that someone decides the gift was never legitimately made in the first place. In other words the company made two separate errors, first crediting the card and then telling you the erroneous points stand. In that case you might have to pay them back whatever you've spent on the card (beyond the points you're entitled to). To avoid this you'd need to establish what constitutes a binding gift in your jurisdiction, so that you can say \"\"no, the point balance was not erroneous and here's the legal reason why\"\", and pay them nothing. You might also need to consider any tax implications in receiving such a large gift, and of course before paying tax on it (if that's necessary) you'd probably want to bug them for confirmation in writing that it really is yours. If that written confirmation isn't forthcoming then so be it, they've rescinded the gift and I doubt you're inclined to take them to court demanding that they stand by the words of their rep. Use them and play stupid. It's not my duty to check their math, right? That's potentially fraud or theft if you lie. You did notice, and even worse they have proof you noticed since you made the call. So never say you didn't notice. If you hadn't called them (yet), then you've been given something in error, and your jurisdiction will have an opinion on what your responsibilities are. So if you hadn't already called them, I would strongly suggest that you should call them or write to them about it to give them the opportunity to correct the error, or at least seek assurance that in your jurisdiction all errors in the customer's favour are final. Otherwise you're in the position of them accidentally handing you their wallet without realising, and you deciding to keep it without telling them. My guess is, that's unlikely to be a legally binding gift, and might legally be theft or fraud on your part.\""
},
{
"docid": "143296",
"title": "",
"text": "If I had known about this promotion and were less lazy, I would probably have taken advantage of it myself. Would it be theft? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm kind of antisocial, and doing something illegal/unethical, getting away with it, and making a profit would give me some pleasure."
},
{
"docid": "263659",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several red flags here. can they get my bank account info in any way from me transferring money to them? Probably yes. Almost all bank transactions are auditable, and intentionally cause a money track. This track can be followed from both sides. If they can use your bank account as if they were you, that is a bit deeper than what you are asking, but yes they (and the polish cops) can find you through that transfer. I did look up the company and didn't find any scam or complaints concerning them. Not finding scams or complains is good, but what did you find? Did you find good reviews, the company website, its register, etc, etc? How far back does the website goes (try the wayback machine) Making a cardboard front company is very easy, and if they are into identity theft the company is under some guy in guam that never heard of poland or paypal. As @Andrew said above, it is probably a scam. I'd add that this scam leverages on the how easier is to get a PayPal refund compared to a regular bank transfer. It is almost impossible to get the money back on an international transaction. Usually reverting a bank transfer requires the agreement in writing of the receiver and of both banks. As for paypal, just a dispute from the other user: You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability. (source) Also, you might be violating the TOS: Allow your use of the Service to present to PayPal a risk of non-compliance with PayPal’s anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing and similar regulatory obligations (including, without limitation, where we cannot verify your identity or you fail to complete the steps to lift your sending, receiving or withdrawal limit in accordance with sections 3.3, 4.1 and 6.3 or where you expose PayPal to the risk of any regulatory fines by European, US or other authorities for processing your transactions); (emphasis mine, source) So even if the PayPal transfer is not disputed, how can you be sure you are not laundering money? Are you being paid well enough to assume that risk?"
},
{
"docid": "581889",
"title": "",
"text": "First thing to do when you notice a credit card fraud is to call the respective banks who issues the credit card and most banks immediately (as far as my experience goes - twice) they will cancel the credit card and issue a new card with different number. Your credit card account will remain the same, no effect on credit score as the account is still active, its just the credit card number is changed. If you are more concerned about Identity Theft, there are two further options you can pursue. Place a Fraud Alert : Ask 1 of the 3 credit reporting companies to put a fraud alert on your credit report. They must tell the other 2 companies. An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. The alert lasts 90 days but you can renew it. - as per Federal Trade Commission Credit Freeze : If you’re concerned about identity theft, those reported mega-data breaches, or someone gaining access to your credit report without your permission, you might consider placing a credit freeze on your report. - as per Federal Trade Commission"
},
{
"docid": "5860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The whole process was so absurd though. They asked me to scan and submit my ID (which I did). Then they told me they couldn't accept it because it wasn't real and was \"\"obviously downloaded from the internet.\"\" (lolwut.) I've never been so casually accused of identity theft before- that was interesting. So I took a picture of me holding the ID and sent that instead. Susan (the woman I was speaking with (dunno why I still remember that name)) said for \"\"security reasons\"\" I would have to wait three months and try again. Three months later they didn't even ask for ID.\""
},
{
"docid": "201758",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\""
},
{
"docid": "470024",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft."
},
{
"docid": "412244",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a \"\"Bank correspondent\"\", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself. The bank employee to whom I talked obviously was unsure whether the transfer parameters were enough (obviously this was a very unusual situation for her), but she took the information from me, and I guess just passed it on to someone more knowledgable. The fee was something about $40. Another option that I might think of is her US bank issuing and mailing her a check for the whole sum, and she trying to cash it here in Russia. This is possible, but very few banks do cash checks here (Citibank Russia is among those that do). The bank will also charge a fee, and it will be comparable to transfer fee. Plus mailing anything is not quite reliable here. She would also have to consider whether she need to pay Russian taxes on this sum. If the sum is big and passes through a bank, I guess Russian tax police may find this out through and question her. If it is withdrawn from a VISA card, I think it will not be noticed, but even in this case she might be required to file a tax herself.\""
},
{
"docid": "96538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Have you been rejected from a rental for a specific reason (leading to this question)? Landlords are in the business of exchanging space for regular payments with no drama. Anything they ask in an application should be something to minimize the risk of drama. The \"\"happy path\"\" optimistic goal is that you pay your rent by the due date every month. If your income is not sufficient for this, demonstrating you have assets and would be able to pay for the full term of the lease is part of the decision to enter into the lease with you. In the non-happy-path, say you fall off the face of the earth before ending the lease. The landlord could be owed several months of rent, and could pursue a legal judgment on your assets. With a court order, they can make the bank pay out what is owed; having bank information reduces the landlord's cost and research efforts in the event the story has degenerated to this point (in the jargon of landlording, this means the tenant is \"\"collectable\"\"). While of course you could have zeroed out your accounts or moved money to a bank you didn't tell the landlord in the meantime, if you are not the bad actor in this story, you probably wouldn't have. If you get any kind of \"\"spidey-sense\"\" about a landlord or property at all there is probably a better rental situation in your city. You also want to minimize drama. If the landlord is operating like a business, they're not in this to perform identity theft. If the landlord is sloppy, or has sloppy office workers, that would be different. In the event sharing your asset information truly bothers you, and the money is for rental expense anyway, you could offer to negotiate a 1 year prepaid rental (of course knock another 5%-10% off for time value of money and lower risk to landlord) if you're sure you wouldn't want to leave early.\""
},
{
"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": "159828",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From my understanding, a CDS is a financial product to buy protection against an event of \"\"default\"\" (default of payment). Example: if General Motors owes me money $10,000,000 (because I own GM bonds for example) and I wish to protect myself against the event of GM not repaying the money they owe me (event called \"\"credit default\"\"), I pay FinancialCompany_X (the seller of the CDS) perhaps $250,000 per year against the promise that FinancialCompany_X will pay me in case GM is not paying me. This way I protected myself against that risk. FinancialCompany_X took the risk (against money). A CDS is in fact an insurance. Except they don't call it an insurance which enabled the financial industry to avoid the regulation that applies to insurances. There is a lot of infos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap\""
},
{
"docid": "333688",
"title": "",
"text": "\"FDIC does not insure against robbery. From the FDIC website under the heading \"\"What's not insured?\"\": Robberies and Other Thefts Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers. If a third party somehow gains access to your account and transacts business that you would not approve of, you must contact the bank and your local law enforcement authorities, who have jurisdiction over this type of wrongdoing. So either the bank is out the funds and takes the loss, in which case no new money enters circulation, or the bank has insurance that repays the bank, in which case the insurance company incurs a cost and no new money enters circulation. Either way, no new money enters circulation.\""
}
] |
3767 | What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "520395",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've received letters notifying me of data breaches in the past. In the end, I've never signed up for the offered protection service, figuring if \"\"they\"\" can hack Target or ADP or the IRS, they can hack anybody, like... Equifax. And now Equifax has been hacked. My family's Social Security Numbers were stolen from a hospital database. I think that information, plus public information was used to gain further data from the IRS FAFSA tool. (we got a letter from the IRS). Ultimately, fraudsters used whatever data they had to file a tax return with the IRS and with the Cali FTB (we don't and never have lived in California). We got letters from both, and managed to stop the fraud before it really impacted us...other than having to file a paper tax form this past tax season. Anyway... in a world where Equifax gets hacked: the only solution is: I don't bother with the crazy password schemes you talk about... I have a few different passwords I use, but most my investment accounts use the same username and password. It's all about risk. Bruce Schneier says the same thing. The amount to spend on security should depend on what you're trying to protect. I don't care much if somebody gets into my google account, because I have a google account just because I have to. I barely use it at all. Similarly my yahoo account. My yahoo account uses my \"\"insecure password\"\", and my investment accounts use my \"\"secure password\"\". Credit Card info? Meh. Unless they get into the credit card company database, which undoubtedly has my Social Security Number, it's not that big of a deal. Yeah, they can make fraudulent charges, but there are legal protections, so in theory I can't be out any money. So think this way: what's the risk, and what's the appropriate level of effort to take to mitigate that risk.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "244973",
"title": "",
"text": "It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police. So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie. In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full. Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true. It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her. But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again."
},
{
"docid": "143296",
"title": "",
"text": "If I had known about this promotion and were less lazy, I would probably have taken advantage of it myself. Would it be theft? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm kind of antisocial, and doing something illegal/unethical, getting away with it, and making a profit would give me some pleasure."
},
{
"docid": "551747",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You would be facilitating identity theft. You would be risking people who disagree with your approach thinking you're foolish. Are you really going to gain enough from this decision to offset the risks? Can't you do the same thing with much less detail or a \"\"fantasy\"\" account?\""
},
{
"docid": "116630",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I took computer science in college so to be fair I can't call myself an engineer... I figured it wouldn't matter, but apparently engineer is a protected term. Which begs the question why 6 out of 7 computer science bachelor degrees in the university here don't officially make you an engineer. What are those web, application, software, systems, math orientated, game, \"\"general\"\", and art degrees are good for...? Or does no one know this and everyone is applying to engineer positions and being titled engineer without being one...? But you are correct. They do start at 60k. Funny thing though, I traded starting salary information with 6 different co-graduates. I actually got paid the most. 32-37k starting salary for associate in computer science.\""
},
{
"docid": "344780",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\""
},
{
"docid": "378432",
"title": "",
"text": "Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines."
},
{
"docid": "556219",
"title": "",
"text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection)."
},
{
"docid": "228858",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\""
},
{
"docid": "333688",
"title": "",
"text": "\"FDIC does not insure against robbery. From the FDIC website under the heading \"\"What's not insured?\"\": Robberies and Other Thefts Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers. If a third party somehow gains access to your account and transacts business that you would not approve of, you must contact the bank and your local law enforcement authorities, who have jurisdiction over this type of wrongdoing. So either the bank is out the funds and takes the loss, in which case no new money enters circulation, or the bank has insurance that repays the bank, in which case the insurance company incurs a cost and no new money enters circulation. Either way, no new money enters circulation.\""
},
{
"docid": "530986",
"title": "",
"text": "How in the world is it the perfect vehicle to hide theft? Every single transaction is publicly recorded and the best you can do is try to obfuscate that. Yet even if you get away with a crime today, the ledger is open for anyone to analyze, study, survey, and if you are caught later down the road with that wallet (such as an cached file on a computer) you will be linked to the crime you committed. Plus you can't do anything nearly of any size and cashing out means revealing your identity through the exchanges which are under constant surveillance. So please, tell me again how it's the perfect vehicle to hide theft -- because I'm sure the silk road chief who is sitting in jail would love to hear your tips."
},
{
"docid": "35736",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Also posting here to get answers 1) In pre-university education, what do I list along with my A levels? Are AS levels and GCSEs necessary? 2) Should i upload a degree transcript? (they say its optional hence why i'm asking) 3) Does the answer to \"\"How did you hear about JPM/GS/CS/BAML?\"\" affect your application? (moronic i know, but i thought better to know than to be clueless) 4) Do your answers to the equal opportunities form affect your application? (just want to know since its almost accepted now that if youre not a white male, your application will get scrutinised in some way depending on the reader, and i'm not white) 5) Following on from the previous question, my first name is Mohammad so should I consider changing my name on my CV and application forms? Again because of the bad press that Muslims get, and since Mohammad is such an obvious Muslim name. I also speak an Asian language so should i list that on my form/CV? I know this sounds like I want to hide my identity, but believe me it's the last thing I want to do. It's just something I feel like I might have to do. Nor do I want any sympathy for doing this. It's something a friend of mine suggested and I want to get people's opinions.\""
},
{
"docid": "464296",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit."
},
{
"docid": "534294",
"title": "",
"text": "> ...if we can't trust people to know what they want... I'm not saying people don't know what they want. I am saying what people want is easy to influence and every large, successful company does so. > When you say that not being able to resist buying skittles is a serious problem, while there are still people living on the streets, I think you need some perspective. I think both problems have the same issues at their core -- what is best for corporate America is not always what is best for the greater good. > I'd wager that what you're seeing as you get older is the poverty trap... No, what I see is that people solve problems as best they can with the tools they have learned. People make bad choices because they have an incomplete and/or bad assortment of tools to use. For example, someone might be worse off in life because he/she never learned the value of good organization skills. Another example is one person in a couple being unable to trust his/her partner because everyone before was untrustworthy. > ...which is caused by barriers to expanding earnings... Just had to throw your primary assertion back in, didn't ya? /grin > I'd still like to know whether you believe you yourself need to be protected from these marketing practices... I do believe I need protection from company marketing practices. I also believe I need protection from their products, influences on the market, environmental impacts, and employee treatment. FYI, I don't believe impulse buying racks at stores should be illegal but I do think it is a great illustration of how a company caters to needs that are different than our true innate needs."
},
{
"docid": "329620",
"title": "",
"text": "The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that. Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question : Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back."
},
{
"docid": "277457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're not focusing in the right place and neither is anyone else on this thread because this isn't about the guy owning you money... This is about you not having enough money to pay your rent. If rent wasn't due and the utility bills weren't piling up, you wouldn't be trying to justify taking money out of someone else's account. So let's triage this. Your #1 problem isn't hunting down Dr. Deadbeat's wallet. So put a pin in that for now and get to the real deal. Getting rent paid. Right? OK, you said he called \"\"regarding a business I have\"\". It's great that you have your own business. Are you also employed elsewhere? If you are, then you really should simply go to your employer and tell them you are in financial distress. Tell them that right now you can't cover your rent or bills and you want to know if they can help, i.e. give you an advance from your paycheck, do a withdrawal/loan from a retirement savings that's in your employee benefits package, etc... They will HELP YOU because it's in their best interest as much as it is in yours. Foregoing that, consider these thoughts... If you were to go your grandparents telling them what you told all of us here, and ask them the same \"\"do you think it's ok to...\"\", they would say something close to \"\"Absolutely DO NOT touch someone else bank account EVER! It doesn't matter what information you have, how you got it, or what you think they owe you. Do NOT touch it. There's a legal system that will help you get it from them if they truly do owe it to you.\"\" I guarantee you this, withdrawing funds from an account on which you are NOT an authorized signatory is both financial theft as well as identity theft. Bonus if you do it on a computer, because you'd then be facing criminal charges that go beyond your specific legal district, i.e. you'd face criminal charges on a national level. If convicted, odds are you'd be sentenced within the penal guidelines of the Netherlands 1983 Financial Penalties Act (FPA). Ergo, you would have much much much less money in the very near future, which would feel like an eternal walk through the Hell of the court system. Ultimately, over your lifetime you would be exponentially poorer than you may think you are now. I strongly urge you to rebrand this \"\"financial loss\"\" as \"\"Tuition at the School of Hard Knocks\"\". There's one last thing... the train jumps the tracks for me during your story... This guy called you? Right?... (raised eyebrow) What kind of business do you \"\"have\"\"? The sense of desperation and naiveté in your urgent need for money to pay rent. The fact that you are accepting payment for services by conducting a bank transfer specifically from your clients account directly toward your own utility bills is a big red flag. Bypassing business accounting and using revenue for personal finances isn't legitimate business practices. Plus you are doing it by using the bank information of brand new client who is a TOTAL stranger. Now consider fact that this total stranger was so exceedingly generous to someone from whom he wanted personal services to be rendered. Those all tell me that he's doing something he wants the other person to do for him and he doesn't want anyone else to know. The fact that he's being so benevolent like a 'sugar daddy' tells me that he feels guilty for having someone do what he's asking them to do. Perceived financial superiority is the smoothest of smooth power tools that predators and abusers have in their bag. For instance, an outlandish financial promise is probably the easiest way to target someone who is vulnerable; and then seduce them into being their victim. Redirecting your focus on how much better life will be once your problem is solved by this cash rather than focusing on the fact that they're taking advantage of you. Offering to pay rates that are dramatically excessive is a way of buying a clean conscious, because he's doing something that will \"\"rescue you\"\" from a crisis. The final nail in the coffin for me was that he left so abruptly and your implied instinct suggesting his reason was a lie. It sounds like he got scared or ashamed of his actions and ran out. It paints a picture that this was sex-for-money Good luck to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "361133",
"title": "",
"text": "The justification for an act typically comes after the decision is made. People operate under a fairly universal set of instincts and social behaviors, so I think condemning him for this behavior directly is short sighted. I would ask instead, why do people feel that cheating organizations like target is so emotionally easy? I would wager that burdalane is not the sort of person who would steal his neighbors unlocked bike from his porch or hustle a man for bus fare, so what is different? We seem, (generally, as a population) to have less emotional investment in strangers than ourselves, even less in people from other cultures, and even less in animals. We will fight hard to save the lives of 5000 of our soldiers, less hard to save a million of their civilions, and we certainly don't give a fuck about taking a bee's honey or killing a chicken and eating it (again, generally). I would propose that organizations like big box stores fall somewhere between animals and foreign peasants as far as our feelings of responsibility towards them. It is a little more complicated than that because obviously a big box store supports the lives of a certain number of people, but if a big box store were delicious and did not support people I would wager it would not survive for very long. So the defining difference seems to be whether or not you are a person who makes a rational decision that the store provides more good for your people unmolested or if it is a net harmful force, whether you have strong ingrained emotional belief structures regarding cheating or therft, and whether your rational mind supercedes your emotional decision making (mine rarely does, though I try). A person who thinks that they do more harm to the population than good even with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing might steal from the store even though they would never steal from another person. They would be completely morally justified in this act. Similarly, a person who thinks that the store does more good than harm, and does not steal from the store regardless of whether or not they think stealing is wrong would also be morally just in their actions. A person who thinks they do no harm to the community but has no negative emotional connection to the act of theft might steal from both the store and their neighbor. They would obviously not be justified. A person with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing which supercedes their rational decision regarding the value of a big box store will not steal, but they may not be morally justified in the decision, depending on their rational take. I think I fall into the first category. I think it is wrong not to do harm to an organization like target when it is possible to do so, yet I generally don't go about this by stealing because getting caught would be much worse than whatever harm I could do by jacking a few dollars worth of merchandise. This offer allowed a means of theft without getting caught, and had I been aware of it I probably would have availed myself of it. As it stands I just work extremely hard in the field of biochemistry with the hopes that one day I will contribute to technologies which will allow humans to live and thrive without having to buy food, clothes, medicine, or shit from target."
},
{
"docid": "470024",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft."
},
{
"docid": "209996",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Nobody knows for sure what \"\"substantially identical\"\" means because the IRS hasn't officially defined it. Until they do so, it would come down to the decision of an auditor or a tax court. The rule of thumb that I have always heard is if the funds track the same index, they are probably substantially identical. I think most people wouldn't consider any pair of AGG, CMF, and NYF to be substantially identical, so you should be safe with your tax-loss harvesting strategy.\""
},
{
"docid": "40719",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are describing is perfectly legal, and is well under the threshold to attract the attention of the IRS ($10K+). The money is not income, because it is repayment for goods provided or a loan made to your friends. I do this myself oftentimes to take advantage of the rewards on my credit cards. With cash to cover expenses coming in immediately from friends/family, there is virtually no risk. If you are concerned and want to protect against questions in the future about the source of the money, you ought to start keeping records of dates, times, locations, amounts, and the names of people involved when the charges are made. Then track the dates when the cash is deposited into your bank account. That way you can demonstrate the cash flow (Charge -> Repayment -> Deposit) to anyone who needs to know."
}
] |
3767 | What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "320246",
"title": "",
"text": "I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "470024",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft."
},
{
"docid": "584788",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Protected class** In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. The following characteristics are \"\"protected\"\" by federal law: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\""
},
{
"docid": "250564",
"title": "",
"text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection."
},
{
"docid": "14466",
"title": "",
"text": "Checking account holders must be aware that when you order bank checks online, you will be required to provide some sensitive personal and financial information. When I order my checks online, I make sure to think about the consequences of providing the information being demanded. Considering that identity theft remains the top threat for checking account holders, it would be wise to pause for a moment before submitting the information."
},
{
"docid": "544949",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too. You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be \"\"good evidence\"\" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality \"\"image\"\" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft.\""
},
{
"docid": "344780",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\""
},
{
"docid": "75195",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a very similar situation doing side IT projects. I set up an LLC for the business, created a separate bank account, and track things separately. I then pay myself from the LLC bank account based on my hours for the consulting job. (I keep a percentage in the LLC account to pay for expenses.) I used to do my taxes myself, but when I created this arrangement, I started having an accountant do them. An LLC will not affect your tax status, but it will protect you from liability and make things more accountable come tax time."
},
{
"docid": "444624",
"title": "",
"text": "I've been doing this exact thing for almost 2 years using the Amazon app. What I don't understand is why they came out with this new app which scans barcodes or pictures to show you items on Amazon? This is already in the Amazon app. They're basically identical apps, why are there two apps, can I get the discount in the primary app or should I uninstall that and use this identical app now?"
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "519644",
"title": "",
"text": "Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance >will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way? No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit. >Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen? Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections."
},
{
"docid": "29813",
"title": "",
"text": "If they have your account numbers (which are necessary for direct deposits) they could possibly initiate ACH withdrawals from your accounts too (requires some setup but they may have accomplices). Note that even if you didn't have money there, depending on the local bank rules you may be still on the hook for overdrafts they create, at least by default. You may be able to prove later that this was fraud but the burden of proof will be on you, and in the meantime they might be gone with the money. They could use your documents to either establish other accounts in your name (identity theft) or take over your accounts (e.g. by contacting customer service of the bank and claiming to be you, and presenting the documents you sent as a proof), request credits under your identity (possibly using the money on the account as a collateral since the bank may not know where the money is from), etc. This is even easier given you will give them all the documents and information needed for a loan, your signature, etc. And the fact that they ask you to send documents to a specific address doesn't mean they could be found at that address when the problems start - it may be rented short-term, belong to either knowing or unknowing accomplice, be a forwarding service, etc. Could be money laundering of course too. That's just what comes to mind after a short while thinking about it."
},
{
"docid": "333688",
"title": "",
"text": "\"FDIC does not insure against robbery. From the FDIC website under the heading \"\"What's not insured?\"\": Robberies and Other Thefts Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers. If a third party somehow gains access to your account and transacts business that you would not approve of, you must contact the bank and your local law enforcement authorities, who have jurisdiction over this type of wrongdoing. So either the bank is out the funds and takes the loss, in which case no new money enters circulation, or the bank has insurance that repays the bank, in which case the insurance company incurs a cost and no new money enters circulation. Either way, no new money enters circulation.\""
},
{
"docid": "261902",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\""
},
{
"docid": "58696",
"title": "",
"text": "Every guess you made is incorrect I'm living fairly well for a 25 year old with a kid on the way. Have my own house my own car 0 debt and work my ass off to keep it that way. I grew up in a poor family and know how to work hard for what I want and believe taxation to be theft and don't like the idea of theft. Also a housing bubble popping can and will ruin an economy ie 2008. Please do yourself and the world a favor and stop looking at everything from your statist liberal glass. Go take a look at switzerland and their economy and tell me how well they are doing with the 4th freest market in the world and more personal freedom than any other European country. No I don't think liberal policies are holding me back I think government holds me back, all of it. This country was founded on freedom and had the smallest government in world history that has now become the largest in world history. Lastly I don't know much about the Kansas situation but what I do know from the limited exposure to the situation is that these tax cuts were followed by spending increases (however minimal) every year. You can't cut revenue and increase spending and expect good things to happen because they dont."
},
{
"docid": "143296",
"title": "",
"text": "If I had known about this promotion and were less lazy, I would probably have taken advantage of it myself. Would it be theft? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm kind of antisocial, and doing something illegal/unethical, getting away with it, and making a profit would give me some pleasure."
},
{
"docid": "244973",
"title": "",
"text": "It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police. So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie. In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full. Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true. It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her. But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again."
},
{
"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 $25000, and the high and low extremes are the same age. You can search for tips on how often to request increases for your particular card, or what kind of spending habits the issuer prefers. An important note: You do not need to carry a balance to make the issuer happy. You never need to pay a cent in credit card interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "164301",
"title": "",
"text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax."
},
{
"docid": "228858",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\""
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "521712",
"title": "",
"text": "Unless you need extremely large sums of money, I suggest you use an ATM or look for a credit card that has no foreign transaction fees (rare). AFAIK, it's not possible for a retail buyer to purchase currency at the current exchange rate quoted online. You are always going to be paying some spread above that, and the ATM gets you the closest. You could also try to use a bank that has branches in your country and Japan (like HSBC) and do your banking there. Then you likely wouldn't have to pay as much in fees (and possibly could draw on your account in Japan)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "197918",
"title": "",
"text": "There are also currency hedged ETFs. These operate similarly to what gengren mentioned. For example, a currency hedged Japan equities ETF has an inherent short yen/usd position on it in addition to the equity position, so the effects of a falling yen are negated. Note that it will still be denominated in dollars, however. AED is pegged to the dollar though, isnt it? If your broker is charging you a crazy price maybe try again a different day, or get a new broker. http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact"
},
{
"docid": "120604",
"title": "",
"text": "A Yen is like a penny. Buy a chocolate bar 100¥ or £1.00. Should the UK get rid of pennies and only price things to the pound?"
},
{
"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": "280593",
"title": "",
"text": "Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5."
},
{
"docid": "126002",
"title": "",
"text": "IMPACTO offers the best solutions and deals for traveling. Here the traveler will receive rewards while find the best deals. We are all about travel technologies. IMPACTO is a company of the holding Orion Travel Tech Inc.ORION Travel Tech was founded by Mr. Gary German and Mr Rodolfo Ladislau. Mr Gary German, a former Continental Airlines Flight Attendant, Skinit Director, Ad Executive, Feature Film Promotions Director, and Mobile Tech Person.Mr Rodolfo Ladislau, an Airplane Commercial Pilot, Bachelor in Tourism and Hotel Manager with years of experience at the hospitality industry. IMPACTO offers the best solutions and products related to travel industry. learn more details visit here: http://www.iimpacto.com/"
},
{
"docid": "457390",
"title": "",
"text": "If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots' and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter. The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content. Oh, and it's purpose? To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also. A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency. Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad. You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO? are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load? Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc. Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there? In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'??? Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt. Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero. There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away. Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung."
},
{
"docid": "512458",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\""
},
{
"docid": "524645",
"title": "",
"text": "TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE gives the best offers choice of thousands of hotels and flights in the world. We also have a 24-hour phone line if you want to information about hotel and flight booking. Our hotel and flight reviews will help you Find Cheap Hotel Deals in the right location. Whether you are travel booking in last minute. Whether you are travelling for the purpose of business or for entertainment, finding cheap hotel and flight deals of your choice is easy!"
},
{
"docid": "138880",
"title": "",
"text": "You are grossly wrong. COL differences are nowhere that big. Especially for a younger person, for which buying a house is not on the table. I've done the math - I had to, as I received a bay area offer. The cost of most of the things you spend money on (travel, household items, material goods) will hardly change. It's only housing, which is not a big enough of a expense to come even close to your outlandish claim. I'm tired of people who have no cold hard facts and simply parrot what they've heard elsewhere regarding this situation. If you don't know what your talking about, it's best you keep your mouth closed."
},
{
"docid": "562927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren&#039;t previously receiving. > LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it. > The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202637 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "453634",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Eh - no problem at all. Wait a decade or two and they'll train up the best engineers in the world. Remember that Germany began its process of industrialization by making cheap knock-offs of British goods, and that Japanese products were considered sub-par crap as recently as the 1960's (integral to one of the most memorable jokes in the first \"\"Back to the Future\"\" movies.)\""
},
{
"docid": "21055",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> We've been deficit spending for generations and we're trillions in the hole, and that's the psychological issue hanging over our heads. Let's unpack that a bit. What does \"\"trillions in the hole\"\" actually mean for the *issuer* of the dollar? It means that the issuer at various points has to redeem its own interest-bearing dollars (treasuries) for its own non-interest bearing dollars (reserves/notes/coins). That's not a hole. That's moving a balance from the savings account to the checking account at the same bank. You don't think of your savings account balance as the bank being \"\"in the hole\"\" for checking account balances. You implicitly understand that the bank simply marks down the number in one account and marks up the number in the other and you don't fret that the bank might \"\"run out\"\" of checking account balances. Treasuries have this same relationship to reserves. Not similar, not analogous to but the same. Treasury securities are literally interest-bearing accounts at the federal reserve. Reserves are literally demand accounts at the federal reserve. When a treasury matures, a treasury securities account is marked down, a reserve account is marked up. When a treasury is issued, a treasury securities account is marked up and a reserve account is marked down. What you're thinking of as trillions \"\"in the hole\"\" is just trillions in a savings account balance. That's what it means to have \"\"debt\"\" in a currency that you are the *issuer* of and why foreign-denominated debt is fundamentally different. >so we can design a system that will keep inflation low while we dump money into the economy We already have that. There's no inflation monster under the bed. If there's an inflation problem it's that we're so paranoid about it we're not putting *enough* money into the economy and so inflicting unnecessary misery on ourselves. > the issue in my mind with dumping money while the debt situation is such a concern, is that speculators could sh*t the bed and devalue our currency There's nothing a speculator can do vs a sovereign currency that the issuing central bank can't offset. So if you are a sovereign and the issuing central bank is within and beneath your authority, you have the last word and there's no such thing as bond vigilantes. In contrast, if you take on sovereign obligations denominated in currencies where the issuing central bank sits outside your authority as is the case when you borrow/peg to foreign currency or enter a monetary union like the euro, you become just another currency user. Here, your government actually is kinda like a household and can go broke *in that foreign currency*. Consider how that perspective sheds light on the \"\"mystery\"\" of why some countries actually experience a debt crisis and others don't. Why contrary to all the scaremongering, someplace like Japan for example can have 200% debt:GDP *and* near zero interest rates *and* no sovereign debt crisis. It's because Japan issues the yen, *sets* the interest rate on the yen and can't run out of yen. People who don't understand this are what gave the [widowmaker](http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling-confident-about-the-widowmaker-trade-in-japan-2012-12) its name. :) Time after time they line up to place bets on japanese government bond crisis, they're always wrong and always will be.\""
},
{
"docid": "1394",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way."
},
{
"docid": "107369",
"title": "",
"text": "Also mediocre selection of most products. I for one, want high end items. I go to Best Buy and always have to settle with high marked up middle of the road times (in most of my personal experiences). There is great value in having local stock, but if I can wait 2 days for shipping, not have to travel 15+ miles to a Best Buy, I am happy to order online."
},
{
"docid": "350245",
"title": "",
"text": "Japan has huge current account, trade surplus and shrinking population/consumption, Unless they print money, Yen will shoot up, creating problem with their export economy. Japan can only wish the rest of the planet dump their currency, lowering yen and enhancing export. Yen is not a major reserve currency. So there is that. Does it apply to US? probably not, US is deficit and debt economy. Dollar is reserve currency, creating artificial demand and pumping US economy. Once that privilege is gone, dollar global purchasing power will tank. So toying with dollar credibility like Japan printing Yen is not really an option."
},
{
"docid": "574831",
"title": "",
"text": "Planning to take a tour of London in the coming few days? One of the best and time saving ways to travel and visit all across London and nearby is to opt for reliable Nw10 Airport taxi services or Heathrow airport taxi services available at pretty decent prices. @ http://jatransfer.com/about.php"
},
{
"docid": "21163",
"title": "",
"text": "Genius? Maybe if you have never traveled the [world](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+sink+over+toilet&client=opera&hs=EyV&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI_PjghI_XAhXK-lQKHdmTCkgQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=981). This concept has been around forever. While this is innovative in (slow traffic) homes, this doesn't work well on a urinal or in high traffic areas because now you have to provide soap per urinal and double the time at each urinal."
},
{
"docid": "179716",
"title": "",
"text": "So a company can exploit cheap labour overseas, but their cash cannot help pension funds of people from abroad? Multinational Corporations have no national identity. Their profits shouldn't be regarded as being gotten in just one country. If Apple's offshore money gives a guy in Bangladesh a better pension, they can buy a nice Japanese scooter, which in turn allows a Japanese girl to buy an iPod. I'm an idealist, yes. I wish people would stop dividing this world up with fictitious borders and stop with the whole 'us vs them' thing."
},
{
"docid": "286141",
"title": "",
"text": "This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on."
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "128471",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't. When you get to Japan, use your ATM card to withdraw local currency. My bank (ETrade) doesn't charge me int'l fees."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "7755",
"title": "",
"text": "The outsourcing was mainly to secure buy contracts from national airlines in subcontracted countries. Give Mitsubishi a few contracts and see JAL and ANA buy a bunch of the new planes. Japanese people get told again and again, through the broadcast networks that act as propaganda machines, that Japanese engineering and craftsmanship was necessary in the building of the plane. Everybody wins! It was mostly the salespeople telling the engineers how to make the plane."
},
{
"docid": "574831",
"title": "",
"text": "Planning to take a tour of London in the coming few days? One of the best and time saving ways to travel and visit all across London and nearby is to opt for reliable Nw10 Airport taxi services or Heathrow airport taxi services available at pretty decent prices. @ http://jatransfer.com/about.php"
},
{
"docid": "513938",
"title": "",
"text": "This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy: I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen: Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this."
},
{
"docid": "1394",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way."
},
{
"docid": "523359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is true, to an extent. But conditions \"\"on the ground\"\" in Japan are not always as good as they appear. There's [a lot of poverty](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/26/national/social-issues/hidden-poverty-growing-abe-particularly-among-young-single-mothers/#.WVTsMWgrLIU) in Japan, much of which is not obvious. The Japanese sometimes massage numbers too: there are large Korean immigrant populations that aren't necessarily included in Japanese statistics because they aren't always considered \"\"permanent\"\" residents. Also, many Japanese companies and individuals do not use cutting edge technology. While it's true *some* families have consoles, many don't. Most people still don't use smart phones. Fax machines, a classic example, are only just beginning to give way to email for the sending of documents. Japanese medical clinics are often backwards compared to other countries'. I'm not saying Japan doesn't have good quality of life, I'm just concerned that the picture the government paints is usually rosier than the reality in the streets.\""
},
{
"docid": "514055",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Don't listen to the retarded \"\"do-gooder\"\" idiots on this site who think she shouldn't reneg because of some honor or morality bullshit. You have a contract between two people. It states what will happen when you pay (keep car) and what will happen when you don't (they take car). Defaulting isn't an inherent bad thing. There are consequences for it. If you decide to default or to not pay a loan and you're ok with the consequences then do it. The person writing the loan knows the risk they're getting into and they're ok with it. So do what is best for you. As for your original question, sorry I don't have an answer. I don't think anything will happen to her in the U.S. but she might have trouble later on if she decides to move back to Japan or even visit Japan. Or her family may be held accountable for it. No idea. I don't know how Japanese laws works. Hopefully someone here will help but the best thing would be to talk to a lawyer in both the U.S. and in Japan.\""
},
{
"docid": "520087",
"title": "",
"text": "I remember when humorist Dave Barry discussed some guy who invented the software that guaranteed that no two airline passengers ever paid the same fare. As with much of Dave Barry's stuff, it has way too much truth in it. Research when the best time frame to buy your tickets is. It varies wildly with time of day, time of week, time of year, whether the plane is half-empty or not, which airline you're traveling on, etc. Beyond that, if you can rack up frequent flier miles fast enough, you maybe can offset the cost of one of those trips."
},
{
"docid": "521245",
"title": "",
"text": "Some countries don't have robust life insurance markets. Some countries have horrible travel fatality statistics. Some countries don't have very good liability law enforcement. Is $2 on top of a train ticket in the US to send your family a $20,000 payment if you die on the train worth it, probably not. The fatality rate is pretty low here, lots of people have their own life insurance, and the US justice system carries a big liability stick. If you're moving around on trains a lot in other countries where the fatality rate is much higher, you can't buy life insurance on your own, and the legal system doesn't punish negligent operators it might be meaningful, especially for frequent travelers who have dependents. Is buying this coverage a reasonable and cost effective way to insure a person's life, no, clearly not. You're buying a policy to insure your life against being mauled by tiger in New York on a Tuesday, when you've never seen a tiger and don't live in New York. Obviously, if you want life insurance you would not buy coverage this narrow. Personally, I think this is really akin to an impulse buy candy bar at a checkout line of a market. They're dangling this in front of you for an amount of money that's insignificant because some people will pick it up without thinking about it. They're tickling your fear of death just enough to get a dollar from you, but not enough to keep you off the train. And obviously the math works out for the insurer or it would not be offered. Separately, regarding probability, it's not about an incident occurring in a train, it's an incident occurring in this particular train on this particular day/time. If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying on a train in a year the chance of dying on a particular train on a particular day is likely to be one in billions or more. This really isn't about whether or not this coverage is valuable given the risk, it's about whether or not they can get you to impulsively spend a dollar."
},
{
"docid": "300489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\""
},
{
"docid": "121462",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what is traditionally meant by \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\" but lately it has meant the same thing as US monetary policy, or Japanese monetary policy, or Euro monetary policy: PRINT. Look how many Swiss Francs it takes to buy a currency that cannot be printed: I'm not sure why they would be touting \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\". That hasn't been too stellar lately.\""
},
{
"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": "148440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\""
},
{
"docid": "511647",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\""
},
{
"docid": "179716",
"title": "",
"text": "So a company can exploit cheap labour overseas, but their cash cannot help pension funds of people from abroad? Multinational Corporations have no national identity. Their profits shouldn't be regarded as being gotten in just one country. If Apple's offshore money gives a guy in Bangladesh a better pension, they can buy a nice Japanese scooter, which in turn allows a Japanese girl to buy an iPod. I'm an idealist, yes. I wish people would stop dividing this world up with fictitious borders and stop with the whole 'us vs them' thing."
},
{
"docid": "479510",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree. But I'm wondering why Japan is in such a unique position compared to most (all?) other counties. They print money yet suffer from deflation for three decades. And the quality of life is amazing even in the simplest towns. They have their Japanese made air-condition, playing their Japanese made console, eating a cheap and amazingly good nutritious meal at home or at a cheap isakaya/diner. And every year their money buys them more than last year."
},
{
"docid": "493819",
"title": "",
"text": "Welcome to GreyWhale Sushi & Grill. We give the best Asian food in the United States. If you want to online order Asian food, Then you can visit our company website. We provide the best food services and online booking for the birthday, Japanese food, and restaurant in Lincoln NE. The GreyWhaleSushi&grill is the region’s leading Asian food that celebrates the experience with the added touch of global flavor. It believes in celebrating function the rich history and story behind the most beloved Asian cuisine and continues to grow its library of originally produced Asian food, Birthday dinner and happy hour in Lincoln NE."
},
{
"docid": "21055",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> We've been deficit spending for generations and we're trillions in the hole, and that's the psychological issue hanging over our heads. Let's unpack that a bit. What does \"\"trillions in the hole\"\" actually mean for the *issuer* of the dollar? It means that the issuer at various points has to redeem its own interest-bearing dollars (treasuries) for its own non-interest bearing dollars (reserves/notes/coins). That's not a hole. That's moving a balance from the savings account to the checking account at the same bank. You don't think of your savings account balance as the bank being \"\"in the hole\"\" for checking account balances. You implicitly understand that the bank simply marks down the number in one account and marks up the number in the other and you don't fret that the bank might \"\"run out\"\" of checking account balances. Treasuries have this same relationship to reserves. Not similar, not analogous to but the same. Treasury securities are literally interest-bearing accounts at the federal reserve. Reserves are literally demand accounts at the federal reserve. When a treasury matures, a treasury securities account is marked down, a reserve account is marked up. When a treasury is issued, a treasury securities account is marked up and a reserve account is marked down. What you're thinking of as trillions \"\"in the hole\"\" is just trillions in a savings account balance. That's what it means to have \"\"debt\"\" in a currency that you are the *issuer* of and why foreign-denominated debt is fundamentally different. >so we can design a system that will keep inflation low while we dump money into the economy We already have that. There's no inflation monster under the bed. If there's an inflation problem it's that we're so paranoid about it we're not putting *enough* money into the economy and so inflicting unnecessary misery on ourselves. > the issue in my mind with dumping money while the debt situation is such a concern, is that speculators could sh*t the bed and devalue our currency There's nothing a speculator can do vs a sovereign currency that the issuing central bank can't offset. So if you are a sovereign and the issuing central bank is within and beneath your authority, you have the last word and there's no such thing as bond vigilantes. In contrast, if you take on sovereign obligations denominated in currencies where the issuing central bank sits outside your authority as is the case when you borrow/peg to foreign currency or enter a monetary union like the euro, you become just another currency user. Here, your government actually is kinda like a household and can go broke *in that foreign currency*. Consider how that perspective sheds light on the \"\"mystery\"\" of why some countries actually experience a debt crisis and others don't. Why contrary to all the scaremongering, someplace like Japan for example can have 200% debt:GDP *and* near zero interest rates *and* no sovereign debt crisis. It's because Japan issues the yen, *sets* the interest rate on the yen and can't run out of yen. People who don't understand this are what gave the [widowmaker](http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling-confident-about-the-widowmaker-trade-in-japan-2012-12) its name. :) Time after time they line up to place bets on japanese government bond crisis, they're always wrong and always will be.\""
},
{
"docid": "512458",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\""
},
{
"docid": "210538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> A government can run out of gold. It cannot run out of its own free-floating currency. When it comes to borrowing, whether or not you can be unable to service that debt is very relevant to how much interest you pay. > As Japan cannot run out of yen, Japan can borrow yen very cheaply - despite books that don't make a lick of sense if evaluated like a business. So you don't think two \"\"lost\"\" decades going on three and a debt of over 200% isn't a problem for Japan? You want to try that here when it hasn't worked in the most orderly society in the world? And there's more to play out in Japan. No where near \"\"recovery\"\" and in a tail spin again.\""
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "488948",
"title": "",
"text": "Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "311495",
"title": "",
"text": ">Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate. Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger. People really need to learn about government debt in general."
},
{
"docid": "210538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> A government can run out of gold. It cannot run out of its own free-floating currency. When it comes to borrowing, whether or not you can be unable to service that debt is very relevant to how much interest you pay. > As Japan cannot run out of yen, Japan can borrow yen very cheaply - despite books that don't make a lick of sense if evaluated like a business. So you don't think two \"\"lost\"\" decades going on three and a debt of over 200% isn't a problem for Japan? You want to try that here when it hasn't worked in the most orderly society in the world? And there's more to play out in Japan. No where near \"\"recovery\"\" and in a tail spin again.\""
},
{
"docid": "280593",
"title": "",
"text": "Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5."
},
{
"docid": "89744",
"title": "",
"text": "Japan printed 11 trillion yen on Monday. They do this by monetizing their own debt. The increase in the supply of yen affects the value of the currency. Strange thought, I know. Greece has an economic crisis because they were borrowing at rates that AAA rated countries do. Someone noticed that they weren't exactly a AAA country when they needed to ask for bailout money. Since all government debt is considered risk free and same as cash, this came as a shock to most 'investors' hence the 'crisis' edit: my bad, was 11 trillion, not 9 trillion"
},
{
"docid": "493201",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\""
},
{
"docid": "197918",
"title": "",
"text": "There are also currency hedged ETFs. These operate similarly to what gengren mentioned. For example, a currency hedged Japan equities ETF has an inherent short yen/usd position on it in addition to the equity position, so the effects of a falling yen are negated. Note that it will still be denominated in dollars, however. AED is pegged to the dollar though, isnt it? If your broker is charging you a crazy price maybe try again a different day, or get a new broker. http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact"
},
{
"docid": "538816",
"title": "",
"text": "That is very true. I should have used the qualifier that they basically only do domestic travel. I have never tried to red-eye with them, but I guess they don't do it much, if at all. However, if you have freedom, they are awesome due to their policies on: * changing tickets (no fees, just fair difference and you keep the credit until you use it even when you buy the cheap fair), * they don't fuck around with 24 hour cancellation policy (if you decide to cancel, no question/pressure, they just refund the money), * [their rewards program is arguably the best if not one of the best](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/best-worst-frequent-flier-programs/story?id=13693563#.UIlyFK28FQI), * they don't charge to check bags, * **their boarding process get people on the plane in 15 mins instead of 30 or 45 mins** (my favorite part of SW after recently flying AA after like 10 consequitve SW flight), * [they are the most on-time airline in the US](http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/americas-on-time-lifestyle-travel-tech-airlines-jet-blue-southwest.html), * and they give away drink tickets like candy on halloween"
},
{
"docid": "360310",
"title": "",
"text": "you dont understand the way markets work if you think that. speculators exist in every market. there are FX speculators, does that mean that the the US dollar, yuan, or yen is a game of musical chairs? If an asset or commodity has a use for everyday people, then they are going to buy that asset or commodity. Speculators or traders bring liquidity and reduce volatility to make the price less volatile so everyday people will be able to use it. Bitcoin is a new technology and people are trying to figure out what its value should be. This is r/finance and I have to explain this? Obviously there are many people out there who find value in a decentralized digital currency."
},
{
"docid": "168382",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the \"\"risk of doing business.\"\" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much. So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay.\""
},
{
"docid": "524645",
"title": "",
"text": "TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE gives the best offers choice of thousands of hotels and flights in the world. We also have a 24-hour phone line if you want to information about hotel and flight booking. Our hotel and flight reviews will help you Find Cheap Hotel Deals in the right location. Whether you are travel booking in last minute. Whether you are travelling for the purpose of business or for entertainment, finding cheap hotel and flight deals of your choice is easy!"
},
{
"docid": "121462",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what is traditionally meant by \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\" but lately it has meant the same thing as US monetary policy, or Japanese monetary policy, or Euro monetary policy: PRINT. Look how many Swiss Francs it takes to buy a currency that cannot be printed: I'm not sure why they would be touting \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\". That hasn't been too stellar lately.\""
},
{
"docid": "495826",
"title": "",
"text": "Well first of all which Asian currency are you talking about,why i ask is because some Asian currencies are not fully convertible.So a bank may not accept them. So first you need to find out if they are fully convertible or not,if not then the best thing you can do is find a travel agent who have tourist packages to that country and they will buy,as they can later sell it to people going to that country."
},
{
"docid": "267815",
"title": "",
"text": "> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms."
},
{
"docid": "21055",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> We've been deficit spending for generations and we're trillions in the hole, and that's the psychological issue hanging over our heads. Let's unpack that a bit. What does \"\"trillions in the hole\"\" actually mean for the *issuer* of the dollar? It means that the issuer at various points has to redeem its own interest-bearing dollars (treasuries) for its own non-interest bearing dollars (reserves/notes/coins). That's not a hole. That's moving a balance from the savings account to the checking account at the same bank. You don't think of your savings account balance as the bank being \"\"in the hole\"\" for checking account balances. You implicitly understand that the bank simply marks down the number in one account and marks up the number in the other and you don't fret that the bank might \"\"run out\"\" of checking account balances. Treasuries have this same relationship to reserves. Not similar, not analogous to but the same. Treasury securities are literally interest-bearing accounts at the federal reserve. Reserves are literally demand accounts at the federal reserve. When a treasury matures, a treasury securities account is marked down, a reserve account is marked up. When a treasury is issued, a treasury securities account is marked up and a reserve account is marked down. What you're thinking of as trillions \"\"in the hole\"\" is just trillions in a savings account balance. That's what it means to have \"\"debt\"\" in a currency that you are the *issuer* of and why foreign-denominated debt is fundamentally different. >so we can design a system that will keep inflation low while we dump money into the economy We already have that. There's no inflation monster under the bed. If there's an inflation problem it's that we're so paranoid about it we're not putting *enough* money into the economy and so inflicting unnecessary misery on ourselves. > the issue in my mind with dumping money while the debt situation is such a concern, is that speculators could sh*t the bed and devalue our currency There's nothing a speculator can do vs a sovereign currency that the issuing central bank can't offset. So if you are a sovereign and the issuing central bank is within and beneath your authority, you have the last word and there's no such thing as bond vigilantes. In contrast, if you take on sovereign obligations denominated in currencies where the issuing central bank sits outside your authority as is the case when you borrow/peg to foreign currency or enter a monetary union like the euro, you become just another currency user. Here, your government actually is kinda like a household and can go broke *in that foreign currency*. Consider how that perspective sheds light on the \"\"mystery\"\" of why some countries actually experience a debt crisis and others don't. Why contrary to all the scaremongering, someplace like Japan for example can have 200% debt:GDP *and* near zero interest rates *and* no sovereign debt crisis. It's because Japan issues the yen, *sets* the interest rate on the yen and can't run out of yen. People who don't understand this are what gave the [widowmaker](http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling-confident-about-the-widowmaker-trade-in-japan-2012-12) its name. :) Time after time they line up to place bets on japanese government bond crisis, they're always wrong and always will be.\""
},
{
"docid": "21163",
"title": "",
"text": "Genius? Maybe if you have never traveled the [world](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+sink+over+toilet&client=opera&hs=EyV&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI_PjghI_XAhXK-lQKHdmTCkgQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=981). This concept has been around forever. While this is innovative in (slow traffic) homes, this doesn't work well on a urinal or in high traffic areas because now you have to provide soap per urinal and double the time at each urinal."
},
{
"docid": "137874",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Asking people to travel less is silly, and punishing companies for CO2 emissions when there is no alternative is also silly, If the current science on climate change is true, and it certainly seems to be, then asking people to travel less or to produce less CO2 isn't \"\"silly\"\" , it's desperately important. It's really like a smoker with a nagging cough saying it's \"\"silly\"\" to consider stopping smoking. Don't get me wrong - I love to travel, I've been in dozens of countries. But I've cut back on my travel and even more been finding ways to travel with less footprint on the Earth (read: trains).\""
},
{
"docid": "300489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\""
},
{
"docid": "441163",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them."
},
{
"docid": "479510",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree. But I'm wondering why Japan is in such a unique position compared to most (all?) other counties. They print money yet suffer from deflation for three decades. And the quality of life is amazing even in the simplest towns. They have their Japanese made air-condition, playing their Japanese made console, eating a cheap and amazingly good nutritious meal at home or at a cheap isakaya/diner. And every year their money buys them more than last year."
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "198349",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Check whether you're being charged a \"\"Cash advance\"\" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though \"\"Cash advance fee - ATM\"\" has \"\"ATM\"\" in it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150 will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account is negative? That's a bit of a difference!\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "1394",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way."
},
{
"docid": "168382",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the \"\"risk of doing business.\"\" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much. So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay.\""
},
{
"docid": "524645",
"title": "",
"text": "TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE gives the best offers choice of thousands of hotels and flights in the world. We also have a 24-hour phone line if you want to information about hotel and flight booking. Our hotel and flight reviews will help you Find Cheap Hotel Deals in the right location. Whether you are travel booking in last minute. Whether you are travelling for the purpose of business or for entertainment, finding cheap hotel and flight deals of your choice is easy!"
},
{
"docid": "512458",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\""
},
{
"docid": "547982",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Japan Has Entered The Next Phase: Unlimited Money Printing** Investors have been watching Japan for over a decade now, wondering what happens to a country that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 234%--too big to realistically pay off. We are starting to get the answer. For review, Japan was the first country in the modern central banking era to begin a policy of quantitative easing--an unconventional form of monetary policy that is used when interest rates have already been lowered to the zero bound. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of \"\"printed\"\" money to buy government bonds, was widely viewed in Japan as a failure, but what most people don't understand about Japan's early QE experiments is that they were very small--less than $20 billion a month. It took Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to ramp up asset purchases significantly in what was called \"\"Abenomics.\"\" Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. Photographer: Akio Kon/Bloomberg The results of Abenomics have been mixed, but the stock market is certainly higher and the yen is certainly lower, although it's not clear that either of those two developments have really helped. Japan's stock market is mostly foreign-owned, and the weaker yen didn't materially help the balance of trade. Still, there are a lot of people who said that Japan's endless debt deflation would have been worse without Abenomics, so it has remained firmly in place for five years. Abenomics rapidly began to cause distortions, as accelerated asset purchases caused the Bank of Japan to hold a huge percentage of outstanding government bonds, at 40% and rising, as well as being the majority holder of index ETFs. Investors who traffic in JGBs have remarked that the market now functions very poorly, since so much of the market is held by the BOJ. It seems that will get worse, not better. Last year the BOJ implemented a policy of yield curve targeting (ostensibly to help the banks), keeping the overnight rate negative but targeting a 10 year rate at zero percent. The BOJ has been buying longer-dated bonds for years, but this was the first time it ever explicitly capped a rate at longer maturities. Some people wondered how committed the BOJ would be to maintain that cap in the event that JGBs were caught up in a global duration selloff, which we experienced in the last two weeks. As 10-year JGB yields rose above 0.10% last week, the BOJ announced that it was prepared to buy an unlimited amount of bonds to keep yields close to zero percent. As you can imagine, buying an unlimited amount of 10-year JGBs involves printing a theoretically unlimited amount of yen, so the yen weakened significantly on the news. It still remains about ten percent stronger than it was in 2015. We are getting closer to the endgame for Japan. What happens if yields rise further? What happens if the yen depreciates significantly? How much could it depreciate? Could Japan have a currency crisis? What happens if the BOJ ends up owning the entire bond market? These are the questions that investors are asking, and nobody really knows the answers. We are in uncharted territory. I believe that a currency crisis isn't just possible--it's inevitable. And it probably happens at about the time that the BOJ owns all or nearly all of the JGB market, and has to resort to canceling the debt. This sounds like a neat magic trick to make the debt go away, but the laws of economics are not to be conned. Anything is possible--a currency crash, a bond market crash--anything. This is the very definition of debt monetization that resulted in hyperinflation in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Is Japan different? We shall see. We will find out soon, as Japan has taken a major step in that direction. Jared Dillian is the author of All the Evil of This World, and the editor of the 10th Man newsletter for Mauldin Economics. Subscribe here. *Forbes articles have 8 tracking cookies and 9 tracking scripts. This comment has none.*(https://www.reddit.com/r/raws/comments/68xk37/about/)\""
},
{
"docid": "302293",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yea. I know the dimensions too. And it is the exact same wood because it is all imported from the US. The Japanese mills cut wood to mm, but the imported dimensional lumber from the US is cheaper - but not used in house framing whatsoever - people use it for decks and sheds and benches and whatnot. Having the \"\"name\"\" for the board be a dimension the board isn't - and not display the actual dimensions as well is lame. That is the key point I have learned being here in Japan. They have an array of 2x4 6,8,10,12, &16ft boards labeled as such and the mm right below them. When I buy 30x40mm thin lumber, that lumber is 30x40 *exactly*, there is no assumption the actual dimension is smaller. The fact that you need to know that the actual dimensions is smaller for US dimensional lumber is both traditional and asinine. \"\"Inches\"\" means nothing to Japanese people. They don't know the actual dimensions are wrong. So it never bothers them - everything is displayed in *actual* millimeters, so they are not affected by such weirdness. 2x4 lumber is common and well understood by most people in the US. But they should also have the exact dimensions displayed as well- because \"\"most\"\" isn't \"\"all\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "21490",
"title": "",
"text": "I think it depends on how much time I am saving and what I am saving doing. I do not go out of my way to save a few pennies on gas. But If i know that I will be traveling somewhere with cheaper gas anyway I will wait to get there to fill up. But I if I need gas before there I will fill up at the place i stop rather than just getting enough to go to the new location. I heard it best said as being dollar smart instead of dime foolish. Going out of your way for gas like this is dime foolish. On the other hand if you can bundle your trip to the store nearby or other tasks it certianly adds to the value."
},
{
"docid": "219478",
"title": "",
"text": "Welcome to TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE. We are the hotel and flight online booking company, which is located in the United Kingdom. We also car rental and adventure tour service in the world from many previous years. We are the best way to you online hotel booking and flight. At our website, you will get the best price deal on million hotel and popular route flight."
},
{
"docid": "513938",
"title": "",
"text": "This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy: I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen: Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this."
},
{
"docid": "148440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\""
},
{
"docid": "107747",
"title": "",
"text": "Is it possible to open a GBP bank account in Pakistan ? Yes, I have one in HBL. Askari and SCB also offer GBP, USD, Yen and Euro Accounts. They might ask for source of income but that shouldn't be a problem. I work in Singapore (should my Salary Slip to open account) and do online remit from my Singapore Account to HBL GBP, the good thing is the exact amount in GBP gets transferred (although I have to tolerate SG Bank's exchange rates) Are there any risks in doing so ? No Risk but caution. If you are a Tax Filer in Pakistan, then you MUST include this account's balance in opening/closing and also mention any remitances receievd in this account under Income and Assets seperately. All money is legit with bank statements of my pay which is between 35K and 40K per year, am I going to have any trouble at airport as limit is £7K only Cash carry limit while travelling has nothing to do with FC (Foreign Currency) Account. You should never travel with more than 10K USD in total."
},
{
"docid": "393691",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the part where it mentions the 'Japanese method' is illustrative for the rest of the article: most of it has been made up in the head of the author based on hearsay or stereotypical assumptions without actually having worked in a Japanese company."
},
{
"docid": "428980",
"title": "",
"text": "In these days, the trip is the last preference for the people to visit various places internationally. The human beings additionally visit various places of interest for commercial enterprise, satisfaction, and different matters. In the prevailing marketplace, there are masses of travel agents available and pick the precise one which suits their wishes and necessities of the business travel. The Complete travel brokers Inc is the separate one for the handing over the best carrier to the company organization. The tour agents are the professionally one that offers the tour consulting career in a really perfect manner."
},
{
"docid": "381849",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You sound like you know what you're talking about, but you say: \"\"foreign buyers will laugh at them\"\" But the Wall Street Journal, 9/20/12, says that in the last quarter FOREIGN INVESTORS ARE FLOCKING TO BUY JAPANESE BONDS IN RECORD LEVELS even though the yields are very much below other industrialized countries. LOL\""
},
{
"docid": "309099",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> even 400 km could not be realized with a fully charged battery, the aide said. That meant in practice the environment minister could travel only as far as 150 km before being forced to turn back Give me a break! At least 95% of travel with cars is done for much much shorter round trips (going to work, shop or visit grandma). If you want to travel 1000 miles one way, rent a \"\"conventional\"\" car.\""
},
{
"docid": "441523",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you're being inexact with your comment about healthcare. Japanese healthcare outcomes are - by and large - not due to medical services or quality of clinical environments/hospitals. For example, Japanese who live in Japan have a lower incidence of cardiovascular diseases (especially those related to life style and diet) than Japanese who move to the USA, or Americans generally. There are other areas - lung cancer, for example - where outcomes are better as well despite more Japanese who smoke (though relative amount of smoking per smoker may differ - I'm not sure how much). The point is, Japanese health outcomes are largely better than US outcomes due to healthier lifestyles. I would go so far as to say it is the primary cause of comparatively better health outcomes."
},
{
"docid": "210538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> A government can run out of gold. It cannot run out of its own free-floating currency. When it comes to borrowing, whether or not you can be unable to service that debt is very relevant to how much interest you pay. > As Japan cannot run out of yen, Japan can borrow yen very cheaply - despite books that don't make a lick of sense if evaluated like a business. So you don't think two \"\"lost\"\" decades going on three and a debt of over 200% isn't a problem for Japan? You want to try that here when it hasn't worked in the most orderly society in the world? And there's more to play out in Japan. No where near \"\"recovery\"\" and in a tail spin again.\""
},
{
"docid": "523359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is true, to an extent. But conditions \"\"on the ground\"\" in Japan are not always as good as they appear. There's [a lot of poverty](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/26/national/social-issues/hidden-poverty-growing-abe-particularly-among-young-single-mothers/#.WVTsMWgrLIU) in Japan, much of which is not obvious. The Japanese sometimes massage numbers too: there are large Korean immigrant populations that aren't necessarily included in Japanese statistics because they aren't always considered \"\"permanent\"\" residents. Also, many Japanese companies and individuals do not use cutting edge technology. While it's true *some* families have consoles, many don't. Most people still don't use smart phones. Fax machines, a classic example, are only just beginning to give way to email for the sending of documents. Japanese medical clinics are often backwards compared to other countries'. I'm not saying Japan doesn't have good quality of life, I'm just concerned that the picture the government paints is usually rosier than the reality in the streets.\""
},
{
"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."
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "217683",
"title": "",
"text": "When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "411669",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless... $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year. Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you. And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund. The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail. Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early. You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea. If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me). Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads. Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others. Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account. There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again. You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts. These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk. It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age. As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me. With your IRA you can buy CDs or annuities, or stocks and ETFs or any other kind of security. Depending on what you buy inside the IRA, you might not be guaranteed to get your money back. First you need to figure out what you'd like to use the money for. Then, you need to determine when you'd need the money for that use. Then, you need to determine if you can sleep at night while your stock account fluctuates a few percent each day. If you can't, or you don't have answers for these questions, a savings account is a really low friction/low risk place store money and combat inflation while you come up with answers for those questions."
},
{
"docid": "521245",
"title": "",
"text": "Some countries don't have robust life insurance markets. Some countries have horrible travel fatality statistics. Some countries don't have very good liability law enforcement. Is $2 on top of a train ticket in the US to send your family a $20,000 payment if you die on the train worth it, probably not. The fatality rate is pretty low here, lots of people have their own life insurance, and the US justice system carries a big liability stick. If you're moving around on trains a lot in other countries where the fatality rate is much higher, you can't buy life insurance on your own, and the legal system doesn't punish negligent operators it might be meaningful, especially for frequent travelers who have dependents. Is buying this coverage a reasonable and cost effective way to insure a person's life, no, clearly not. You're buying a policy to insure your life against being mauled by tiger in New York on a Tuesday, when you've never seen a tiger and don't live in New York. Obviously, if you want life insurance you would not buy coverage this narrow. Personally, I think this is really akin to an impulse buy candy bar at a checkout line of a market. They're dangling this in front of you for an amount of money that's insignificant because some people will pick it up without thinking about it. They're tickling your fear of death just enough to get a dollar from you, but not enough to keep you off the train. And obviously the math works out for the insurer or it would not be offered. Separately, regarding probability, it's not about an incident occurring in a train, it's an incident occurring in this particular train on this particular day/time. If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying on a train in a year the chance of dying on a particular train on a particular day is likely to be one in billions or more. This really isn't about whether or not this coverage is valuable given the risk, it's about whether or not they can get you to impulsively spend a dollar."
},
{
"docid": "434201",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Been here in Japan 12 years mate, and you're right, the investment options here suck. Be very wary of them, they will take all your money in outrageous fees--3% in and 3% out of some \"\"investment\"\" options. It's a scam. Send the money back home and manage it there. I recommend setting up a Vanguard account back in the UK, then you can invest in Vanguard index funds. Vanguard charges no commission for buying and selling their funds when you have a Vanguard account. I have nearly all my money there (Vanguard US), and I use the free Personal Capital online software to understand how to best manage the allocations in my portfolio. Of course you'll lose a bit of money on wire transfer fees, but you'll more than make up for it if in the long-term, and they may also be offset by currency rate anyway (right now the yen is strong, so a good time to use it to buy GBP). Also you may never need to send the money back to Japan unless you plan on retiring here.\""
},
{
"docid": "137874",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Asking people to travel less is silly, and punishing companies for CO2 emissions when there is no alternative is also silly, If the current science on climate change is true, and it certainly seems to be, then asking people to travel less or to produce less CO2 isn't \"\"silly\"\" , it's desperately important. It's really like a smoker with a nagging cough saying it's \"\"silly\"\" to consider stopping smoking. Don't get me wrong - I love to travel, I've been in dozens of countries. But I've cut back on my travel and even more been finding ways to travel with less footprint on the Earth (read: trains).\""
},
{
"docid": "341699",
"title": "",
"text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction."
},
{
"docid": "562927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren&#039;t previously receiving. > LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it. > The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202637 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "311495",
"title": "",
"text": ">Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate. Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger. People really need to learn about government debt in general."
},
{
"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": "300489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\""
},
{
"docid": "511647",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\""
},
{
"docid": "129195",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For those not using ad and script-blockers: > TOKYO (AP) — The head of Japanese automaker Subaru bowed deeply in apology Friday as the company admitted that it has been carrying out flawed inspections of its Japan-made cars for years. > The announcement by Subaru's chief executive and president, Yasuyuki Yoshinaga, was the latest in a flurry of such scandals. Earlier this month Nissan Motor Co. recalled more than 1 million domestically made cars because of faulty routine tests. > Subaru will submit a report on the problem to the government on Monday, Yoshinaga told reporters. He said a domestic recall is likely, spanning the entire Subaru lineup totaling 255,000 vehicles. > \"\"We are truly sorry, and we apologize,\"\" Yoshinaga said, after bowing deeply. \"\"We all wanted to do the tests properly.\"\" > The government ordered automakers to check their inspection procedures after Nissan apologized for allowing unauthorized employees to do final vehicle checks for years. > The scandals have stunned the public and cast a shadow over this nation's prized image for \"\"monozukuri\"\" or craftsman-like production, reputed for high quality and meticulousness. > Yoshinaga said the faulty inspections for Subaru's finished products had been going on for 30 years. The workers involved did not fully realize their method was wrong, and a thorough review of the entire inspection system is needed, he said. > Workers who didn't have enough experience to do checks borrowed Japanese \"\"hanko\"\" seals from authorized employees and stamped documents to show vehicles had passed the tests, according to the company. The recalls are expected to cost 5 billion yen ($44 million), it said. > Subaru, formerly called Fuji Heavy Industries, is partnered with Toyota Motor Corp., a top shareholder. Toyota and Honda Motor Co. have said they did not have dubious inspections. Toyota said it was checking with Subaru on the reported irregularities. > Nissan is recalling more than a million vehicles in Japan to re-inspect them, and has set up an investigative team that includes a third party to get to the bottom of the scandal and prevent a recurrence. > The problem does not affect Nissan vehicles sold outside Japan and is not believed to have affected vehicle safety as they were final-stage checks. > But the scandal raises serious questions about ethics and professionalism at Nissan, which makes the Leaf electric car and Infiniti luxury models, and is allied with Renault SA of France and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. of Japan. > Reporters peppered Subaru's Yoshinaga with questions about why it took so long after the Nissan scandal for Subaru to come forward. > \"\"I always wanted to make my company a great company, and I now know we had not done enough,\"\" he said. \"\"I am so ashamed that my company has become a cause for tarnishing Japanese monozukuri.\"\" > The auto industry has been hit by a series of scandals. > Nissan took a controlling stake in Mitsubishi Motors last year after that company was caught inflating fuel economy figures for its minicar models, which are also sold under the Nissan brand. > Japanese supplier Kobe Steel acknowledged recently it had systematically falsified data on its products, including steel, aluminum, copper and other materials, affecting some 500 companies including major global automakers, as well as the aircraft, electronics and railway industries. > Volkswagen AG of Germany acknowledged in 2015 that it had equipped its diesel cars with illegal software that enabled cheating on U.S. emissions tests. Volkswagen has agreed to more than $20 billion in fines and civil settlements over the scandal. > Air-bag maker Takata Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection after some 100 million air-bag inflators were recalled worldwide. The defect has been linked to 19 deaths and dozens of injuries.\""
},
{
"docid": "305342",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> no one knows because a QE program of this size has never ever been unwound. The Japanese know. Admittedly, they're not the Fed, but they're targeted to compose ~8% of the SDR through 2020 (down by way over half from their pre \"\"lost decade\"\"s). The Japanese ended up with their central bank directly participating in the stock market. When central banks are the arbiter of market efficiency, you end up with distortions, a la Kobe Steel. Good luck with that, America.\""
},
{
"docid": "309099",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> even 400 km could not be realized with a fully charged battery, the aide said. That meant in practice the environment minister could travel only as far as 150 km before being forced to turn back Give me a break! At least 95% of travel with cars is done for much much shorter round trips (going to work, shop or visit grandma). If you want to travel 1000 miles one way, rent a \"\"conventional\"\" car.\""
},
{
"docid": "547982",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Japan Has Entered The Next Phase: Unlimited Money Printing** Investors have been watching Japan for over a decade now, wondering what happens to a country that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 234%--too big to realistically pay off. We are starting to get the answer. For review, Japan was the first country in the modern central banking era to begin a policy of quantitative easing--an unconventional form of monetary policy that is used when interest rates have already been lowered to the zero bound. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of \"\"printed\"\" money to buy government bonds, was widely viewed in Japan as a failure, but what most people don't understand about Japan's early QE experiments is that they were very small--less than $20 billion a month. It took Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to ramp up asset purchases significantly in what was called \"\"Abenomics.\"\" Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. Photographer: Akio Kon/Bloomberg The results of Abenomics have been mixed, but the stock market is certainly higher and the yen is certainly lower, although it's not clear that either of those two developments have really helped. Japan's stock market is mostly foreign-owned, and the weaker yen didn't materially help the balance of trade. Still, there are a lot of people who said that Japan's endless debt deflation would have been worse without Abenomics, so it has remained firmly in place for five years. Abenomics rapidly began to cause distortions, as accelerated asset purchases caused the Bank of Japan to hold a huge percentage of outstanding government bonds, at 40% and rising, as well as being the majority holder of index ETFs. Investors who traffic in JGBs have remarked that the market now functions very poorly, since so much of the market is held by the BOJ. It seems that will get worse, not better. Last year the BOJ implemented a policy of yield curve targeting (ostensibly to help the banks), keeping the overnight rate negative but targeting a 10 year rate at zero percent. The BOJ has been buying longer-dated bonds for years, but this was the first time it ever explicitly capped a rate at longer maturities. Some people wondered how committed the BOJ would be to maintain that cap in the event that JGBs were caught up in a global duration selloff, which we experienced in the last two weeks. As 10-year JGB yields rose above 0.10% last week, the BOJ announced that it was prepared to buy an unlimited amount of bonds to keep yields close to zero percent. As you can imagine, buying an unlimited amount of 10-year JGBs involves printing a theoretically unlimited amount of yen, so the yen weakened significantly on the news. It still remains about ten percent stronger than it was in 2015. We are getting closer to the endgame for Japan. What happens if yields rise further? What happens if the yen depreciates significantly? How much could it depreciate? Could Japan have a currency crisis? What happens if the BOJ ends up owning the entire bond market? These are the questions that investors are asking, and nobody really knows the answers. We are in uncharted territory. I believe that a currency crisis isn't just possible--it's inevitable. And it probably happens at about the time that the BOJ owns all or nearly all of the JGB market, and has to resort to canceling the debt. This sounds like a neat magic trick to make the debt go away, but the laws of economics are not to be conned. Anything is possible--a currency crash, a bond market crash--anything. This is the very definition of debt monetization that resulted in hyperinflation in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Is Japan different? We shall see. We will find out soon, as Japan has taken a major step in that direction. Jared Dillian is the author of All the Evil of This World, and the editor of the 10th Man newsletter for Mauldin Economics. Subscribe here. *Forbes articles have 8 tracking cookies and 9 tracking scripts. This comment has none.*(https://www.reddit.com/r/raws/comments/68xk37/about/)\""
},
{
"docid": "197918",
"title": "",
"text": "There are also currency hedged ETFs. These operate similarly to what gengren mentioned. For example, a currency hedged Japan equities ETF has an inherent short yen/usd position on it in addition to the equity position, so the effects of a falling yen are negated. Note that it will still be denominated in dollars, however. AED is pegged to the dollar though, isnt it? If your broker is charging you a crazy price maybe try again a different day, or get a new broker. http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact"
},
{
"docid": "9437",
"title": "",
"text": "Shopallitems online shopping destination, presenting as special selection of products, offerings and corporate gives on the maximum competitive charges to be had with pleasant and reliability Shopallitems is Online shopping sites in uae, we paintings difficult to discover the pleasant services for you from Consumer Electronics, Cameras, Camcorders & Photography, Audio Video systems, Computers, Projectors, Binoculars & Telescopes, Home Appliances, Fashion, Beauty, Healthcare, Watches, Gold & Diamonds, Sports, Office Equipment's, Lamps & Lighting, Tours & Travels, Fun & Family, Food & Dining and much extra. To make certain our clients experience a superior buying revel in, we handpick our offerings and work best with extraordinarily professional, select merchants and brands. This is our promise and assure. We are similarly dedicated to the fast and seamless fulfillment and shipping of your order, and within the uncommon situation something ought to now not move to devise, our customer service is standing by way of to help in any manner they can."
},
{
"docid": "441163",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them."
},
{
"docid": "219478",
"title": "",
"text": "Welcome to TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE. We are the hotel and flight online booking company, which is located in the United Kingdom. We also car rental and adventure tour service in the world from many previous years. We are the best way to you online hotel booking and flight. At our website, you will get the best price deal on million hotel and popular route flight."
},
{
"docid": "386211",
"title": "",
"text": "At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way."
}
] |
3771 | Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel? | [
{
"docid": "49601",
"title": "",
"text": "I already commented the best existing answers, however let me note a couple of other things. Some of my friends in the past have wanted to do one of the following:"
}
] | [
{
"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": "532750",
"title": "",
"text": "We provide a well-designed bags at a very affordable price. You just have to know how and where to look for one. Hands free travel bags come with the best quality and style. It is a very functional unique piece of accessory that you can utilize every day. But even if it is a very important accessory, one need not spend too much on this. Travel bags can also be found in a convertible style, with the clutch that converts to both a tote and a shoulder bag."
},
{
"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": "493201",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\""
},
{
"docid": "341699",
"title": "",
"text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction."
},
{
"docid": "121462",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what is traditionally meant by \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\" but lately it has meant the same thing as US monetary policy, or Japanese monetary policy, or Euro monetary policy: PRINT. Look how many Swiss Francs it takes to buy a currency that cannot be printed: I'm not sure why they would be touting \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\". That hasn't been too stellar lately.\""
},
{
"docid": "524645",
"title": "",
"text": "TRAVEL GUYS ONLINE gives the best offers choice of thousands of hotels and flights in the world. We also have a 24-hour phone line if you want to information about hotel and flight booking. Our hotel and flight reviews will help you Find Cheap Hotel Deals in the right location. Whether you are travel booking in last minute. Whether you are travelling for the purpose of business or for entertainment, finding cheap hotel and flight deals of your choice is easy!"
},
{
"docid": "523359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is true, to an extent. But conditions \"\"on the ground\"\" in Japan are not always as good as they appear. There's [a lot of poverty](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/26/national/social-issues/hidden-poverty-growing-abe-particularly-among-young-single-mothers/#.WVTsMWgrLIU) in Japan, much of which is not obvious. The Japanese sometimes massage numbers too: there are large Korean immigrant populations that aren't necessarily included in Japanese statistics because they aren't always considered \"\"permanent\"\" residents. Also, many Japanese companies and individuals do not use cutting edge technology. While it's true *some* families have consoles, many don't. Most people still don't use smart phones. Fax machines, a classic example, are only just beginning to give way to email for the sending of documents. Japanese medical clinics are often backwards compared to other countries'. I'm not saying Japan doesn't have good quality of life, I'm just concerned that the picture the government paints is usually rosier than the reality in the streets.\""
},
{
"docid": "453634",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Eh - no problem at all. Wait a decade or two and they'll train up the best engineers in the world. Remember that Germany began its process of industrialization by making cheap knock-offs of British goods, and that Japanese products were considered sub-par crap as recently as the 1960's (integral to one of the most memorable jokes in the first \"\"Back to the Future\"\" movies.)\""
},
{
"docid": "9437",
"title": "",
"text": "Shopallitems online shopping destination, presenting as special selection of products, offerings and corporate gives on the maximum competitive charges to be had with pleasant and reliability Shopallitems is Online shopping sites in uae, we paintings difficult to discover the pleasant services for you from Consumer Electronics, Cameras, Camcorders & Photography, Audio Video systems, Computers, Projectors, Binoculars & Telescopes, Home Appliances, Fashion, Beauty, Healthcare, Watches, Gold & Diamonds, Sports, Office Equipment's, Lamps & Lighting, Tours & Travels, Fun & Family, Food & Dining and much extra. To make certain our clients experience a superior buying revel in, we handpick our offerings and work best with extraordinarily professional, select merchants and brands. This is our promise and assure. We are similarly dedicated to the fast and seamless fulfillment and shipping of your order, and within the uncommon situation something ought to now not move to devise, our customer service is standing by way of to help in any manner they can."
},
{
"docid": "501456",
"title": "",
"text": "Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings."
},
{
"docid": "111048",
"title": "",
"text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest."
},
{
"docid": "129195",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For those not using ad and script-blockers: > TOKYO (AP) — The head of Japanese automaker Subaru bowed deeply in apology Friday as the company admitted that it has been carrying out flawed inspections of its Japan-made cars for years. > The announcement by Subaru's chief executive and president, Yasuyuki Yoshinaga, was the latest in a flurry of such scandals. Earlier this month Nissan Motor Co. recalled more than 1 million domestically made cars because of faulty routine tests. > Subaru will submit a report on the problem to the government on Monday, Yoshinaga told reporters. He said a domestic recall is likely, spanning the entire Subaru lineup totaling 255,000 vehicles. > \"\"We are truly sorry, and we apologize,\"\" Yoshinaga said, after bowing deeply. \"\"We all wanted to do the tests properly.\"\" > The government ordered automakers to check their inspection procedures after Nissan apologized for allowing unauthorized employees to do final vehicle checks for years. > The scandals have stunned the public and cast a shadow over this nation's prized image for \"\"monozukuri\"\" or craftsman-like production, reputed for high quality and meticulousness. > Yoshinaga said the faulty inspections for Subaru's finished products had been going on for 30 years. The workers involved did not fully realize their method was wrong, and a thorough review of the entire inspection system is needed, he said. > Workers who didn't have enough experience to do checks borrowed Japanese \"\"hanko\"\" seals from authorized employees and stamped documents to show vehicles had passed the tests, according to the company. The recalls are expected to cost 5 billion yen ($44 million), it said. > Subaru, formerly called Fuji Heavy Industries, is partnered with Toyota Motor Corp., a top shareholder. Toyota and Honda Motor Co. have said they did not have dubious inspections. Toyota said it was checking with Subaru on the reported irregularities. > Nissan is recalling more than a million vehicles in Japan to re-inspect them, and has set up an investigative team that includes a third party to get to the bottom of the scandal and prevent a recurrence. > The problem does not affect Nissan vehicles sold outside Japan and is not believed to have affected vehicle safety as they were final-stage checks. > But the scandal raises serious questions about ethics and professionalism at Nissan, which makes the Leaf electric car and Infiniti luxury models, and is allied with Renault SA of France and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. of Japan. > Reporters peppered Subaru's Yoshinaga with questions about why it took so long after the Nissan scandal for Subaru to come forward. > \"\"I always wanted to make my company a great company, and I now know we had not done enough,\"\" he said. \"\"I am so ashamed that my company has become a cause for tarnishing Japanese monozukuri.\"\" > The auto industry has been hit by a series of scandals. > Nissan took a controlling stake in Mitsubishi Motors last year after that company was caught inflating fuel economy figures for its minicar models, which are also sold under the Nissan brand. > Japanese supplier Kobe Steel acknowledged recently it had systematically falsified data on its products, including steel, aluminum, copper and other materials, affecting some 500 companies including major global automakers, as well as the aircraft, electronics and railway industries. > Volkswagen AG of Germany acknowledged in 2015 that it had equipped its diesel cars with illegal software that enabled cheating on U.S. emissions tests. Volkswagen has agreed to more than $20 billion in fines and civil settlements over the scandal. > Air-bag maker Takata Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection after some 100 million air-bag inflators were recalled worldwide. The defect has been linked to 19 deaths and dozens of injuries.\""
},
{
"docid": "13346",
"title": "",
"text": "You won't know what the exchange rate will be when you convert AUD back to USD when you eventually want to spend your money unless you hedge. the movement in fx rates could easily outweigh any benefit received from higher interest. As far as i am aware the way the hedge is constructed you will lose any benefit from foreign interest. That being said, the 'Carry Trade' is big business. There are plenty of people that borrow yen to invest in AUD."
},
{
"docid": "1394",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way."
},
{
"docid": "316555",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, nothing is impossible! :) You can buy it directly from the factory of manufacturer, but then you will have to pay for sea shipping of this car. E.g. you can buy it directly from Japanese Toyota but then you will have to pay to sea cargo ship to deliver your car in container from Japan. Since this car is already your property, before importing to US, I doubt that you would need to pay any custom fees. In the end, the total payment might be a lot cheaper that you can buy there, but you need to be prepared to all this hassle"
},
{
"docid": "136860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "521245",
"title": "",
"text": "Some countries don't have robust life insurance markets. Some countries have horrible travel fatality statistics. Some countries don't have very good liability law enforcement. Is $2 on top of a train ticket in the US to send your family a $20,000 payment if you die on the train worth it, probably not. The fatality rate is pretty low here, lots of people have their own life insurance, and the US justice system carries a big liability stick. If you're moving around on trains a lot in other countries where the fatality rate is much higher, you can't buy life insurance on your own, and the legal system doesn't punish negligent operators it might be meaningful, especially for frequent travelers who have dependents. Is buying this coverage a reasonable and cost effective way to insure a person's life, no, clearly not. You're buying a policy to insure your life against being mauled by tiger in New York on a Tuesday, when you've never seen a tiger and don't live in New York. Obviously, if you want life insurance you would not buy coverage this narrow. Personally, I think this is really akin to an impulse buy candy bar at a checkout line of a market. They're dangling this in front of you for an amount of money that's insignificant because some people will pick it up without thinking about it. They're tickling your fear of death just enough to get a dollar from you, but not enough to keep you off the train. And obviously the math works out for the insurer or it would not be offered. Separately, regarding probability, it's not about an incident occurring in a train, it's an incident occurring in this particular train on this particular day/time. If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying on a train in a year the chance of dying on a particular train on a particular day is likely to be one in billions or more. This really isn't about whether or not this coverage is valuable given the risk, it's about whether or not they can get you to impulsively spend a dollar."
},
{
"docid": "479510",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree. But I'm wondering why Japan is in such a unique position compared to most (all?) other counties. They print money yet suffer from deflation for three decades. And the quality of life is amazing even in the simplest towns. They have their Japanese made air-condition, playing their Japanese made console, eating a cheap and amazingly good nutritious meal at home or at a cheap isakaya/diner. And every year their money buys them more than last year."
}
] |
3781 | What is the rough estimate of salary value for a taxpayer to pay AMT? | [
{
"docid": "131959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "287999",
"title": "",
"text": "Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Depending on amount, if few thousands don't bother. If few lacs get it on a simple plain paper, if in crores, get a proper gift deed executed. There is no tax for you. My son wants to remit some money in his mother's account jointly with me(father). It is very much clear that it will be tax free in india being a gift but how will this amt be treated as gift in the eyes of income tax people? Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Whether our son shows that amt as gift in his yearly return or not. what are the implications to his tax return due to gifted As your son is US citizen, he can only gift USD 14,000 to you and equal amount to your mother in a year. Similarly your daughter in law can give you both 14000 each. If it is more, he has to pay taxes or claim it against life time exemption of 1 million (?) USD"
},
{
"docid": "176034",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your \"\"average company and taxpayer\"\" generally wouldn't have significant off-shore/foreign income. In the U.S., for example, even if you have your employer deposit all of your salary to an account at a foreign bank, they would still report it to the IRS as income. Removing the money from your home country isn't what gets it out of being taxed, it's that the money was never in your home country.\""
},
{
"docid": "332373",
"title": "",
"text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one."
},
{
"docid": "18570",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment."
},
{
"docid": "472632",
"title": "",
"text": "I love giving non-answer answers. It will depend on you. Suppose you are embarrassed by driving older cars, your significant other doesn't like having you drive an older car, you don't really maintain the car well, it develops a variety of problems, acquires a few dents and you really worry about reliability. Then the value of the car will probably drop rather quickly below the blue book value and you should sell it. On the other hand, if you don't care how the car looks, it runs pretty well (fewer repairs than you would expect), you maintain it yourself (aka cheaply) and do a good job at that, and have plenty of friends who owe you a favor and will give you a ride if your car won't start, there will probably never be a time that the value to you drops below the 'official' blue book value (what others will pay), so you would drive it until the engine drops out of the chassis. The blue book value represents some kind of rough consensus about what a car of that age and exterior condition is worth to the typical person; it will be the discrepancy between the 'typical' person and you that determines whether you'll sell. An illustration of this: I know a few people who (1) don't care what their car looks like and (2) are very handy at repairs. These people started out by buying cheap used cars and ran them until they basically fell to pieces. However, even though their 'taste' in cars didn't changes, as their incomes increased, it finally reached the point where doing their own repairs was too much of a time sink, so the value of really old cars dropped in their minds and they shifted to buying newer cars and selling them before they completely fell apart. That's why this is a hard question to answer."
},
{
"docid": "474105",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\""
},
{
"docid": "441718",
"title": "",
"text": "This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000."
},
{
"docid": "382381",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\""
},
{
"docid": "10171",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\""
},
{
"docid": "158136",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \"\"person\"\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \"\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\"\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\""
},
{
"docid": "179986",
"title": "",
"text": "may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator."
},
{
"docid": "121621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\""
},
{
"docid": "259924",
"title": "",
"text": "As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller."
},
{
"docid": "470101",
"title": "",
"text": "If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15. Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year. Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year. If all your income is shared, then that makes sense. But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income). If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details). If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund. Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government. Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want."
},
{
"docid": "192421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\""
},
{
"docid": "257616",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that. And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take."
},
{
"docid": "70796",
"title": "",
"text": "So, the point of the article is that the taxpayers are making up for what Walmart isn't paying. But, walmart pays way more than what it's employees are using. Employees use government programs, Walmartpays more than double of the cost of those programs, so no cost at all is passed to the taxpayers. Walmart WOULD be evil if they didn't pay taxes. But they do. The article is nonsense. We get it. You don't like big business."
},
{
"docid": "435060",
"title": "",
"text": "\"X-Post referenced from [/r/irstudies](http://np.reddit.com/r/irstudies) by /u/smurfyjenkins [Do Immigrants Cost Native-Born Taxpayers Money? - \"\"The future impact of one additional immigrant is strongly positive, with the government accruing an estimated net present value of $173,000 to $259,000\"\"](http://np.reddit.com/r/IRstudies/comments/6q012s/do_immigrants_cost_nativeborn_taxpayers_money_the/) ***** ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot. ^^I ^^delete ^^my ^^negative ^^comments. ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[Code](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[FAQ](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher#faq)\""
},
{
"docid": "487728",
"title": "",
"text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above."
}
] |
3781 | What is the rough estimate of salary value for a taxpayer to pay AMT? | [
{
"docid": "413328",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Turbox Tax states the following: \"\"For 2015, the AMT exemption amounts are $53,600 for individual taxpayers, $83,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses, and $41,700 for married persons filing separately. This is the amount you're allowed to deduct from your taxable income before applying the AMT.\"\"\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "441718",
"title": "",
"text": "This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000."
},
{
"docid": "406723",
"title": "",
"text": "Do I get a write off for paying student loans? Maybe. See https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch04.html Generally, personal interest you pay, other than certain mortgage interest, isn't deductible on your tax return. However, if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is less than $80,000 ($160,000 if filing a joint return) there is a special deduction allowed for paying interest on a student loan (also known as an education loan) used for higher education. For most taxpayers, MAGI is the adjusted gross income as figured on their federal income tax return before subtracting any deduction for student loan interest. This deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $2,500. Read the whole document to be sure, but that's the basics. You'll have to fill out a 1040 or 1040A to claim a student loan deduction. It won't be on the 1040EZ. You do not have to itemize though. What kinds of write-offs and credits are available for someone who is single and lives in an apartment with two roommates? As a practical matter, in 2016 you'll get the standard deduction for someone who is single ($6300) and the personal exemption ($4050). It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to deduct more by itemizing. Most people who itemize are taking a mortgage interest deduction. Major medical bills are another possibility, but they have to be more than 10% of your adjusted gross income (it's one of the lines on your tax return). Assuming you rent and are reasonably healthy, you are unlikely to have enough to itemize. The most likely additional deduction would be the one for an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Although you might be better off doing a Roth anyway (no tax deduction). If you are self-employed or making more than $100,000 a year, there are additional issues. But most people aren't. If you filled out a W-4 and will get a W-2 back, you aren't self-employed. Hopefully you have a rough idea of your annual income. The first $9275 over your deductions will pay 10%. After that, up to $37,650 you pay 15%. The 2016 link above has a link (PDF) to the full table if you need more than that. Note that that is the first $48,000 in income with your $10,350 in deductions."
},
{
"docid": "474105",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\""
},
{
"docid": "228289",
"title": "",
"text": "Thanks for the feedback obelus, The cost is $20,000 to 50,000 sqft. Ya I am just looking for a rough idea of what a similar newer building is costing I figured what we are paying is really high as the building is extremely old and designated as a heritage site so we can't just knock it down. Beautiful building just not very efficient. The newer building is the route I think we are gonna end up going not sure what we can do with the current building as not too many options for resale. We can't adjust the lease rates to compensate for the cost as the tenants are all seniors and it is an integrated care home. A change to apartments would prove difficult as there are no kitchens in 90% of the suites. We are currently paying approximately $0.40 psf a month to heat (All electric) and the estimate for the new building is $0.1425 psf (Geothermal) so it is a pretty huge impact in comparison if it is possible but I haven't heard of a real building actually costing that little before. Thanks for the suggestion for the IR I think I am gonna get some one in after the holidays to do a inspection to see if there is any short term fixes we can do with our system."
},
{
"docid": "18570",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment."
},
{
"docid": "575046",
"title": "",
"text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability."
},
{
"docid": "456373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally, a share of stock entitles the owner to all future per-share dividends paid by the company, plus a fraction of the company's assets net value in the event of liquidation. If one knew in advance the time and value of all such payouts, the value of the stock should equal the present cash value of that payout stream, which would in turn be the sum of the cash values of all the individual payouts. As time goes by, the present cash value of each upcoming payout will increase until such time as it is actually paid, whereupon it will cease to contribute to the stock's value. Because people are not clairvoyant, they generally don't know exactly what future payouts a stock is going to make. A sane price for a stock, however, may be assigned by estimating the present cash value of its future payments. If unfolding events would cause a reasonable person to revise estimates of future payments upward, the price of the stock should increase. If events cause estimates to be revised downward, the price should fall. In a sane marketplace, if the price of a stock is below people's estimates of its payouts' current cash value, people should buy the stock and push the price upward. If it is above people's estimates, they should sell the stock and push the price downward. Note that in a sane marketplace, rising prices are a red-flag indicator for people to stop buying. Unfortunately, sometimes bulls see a red flag as a signal to charge ahead. When that happens, prices may soar through the roof, but it's important to note that the value of the stock will still be the present cash value of its future payouts. If that value is $10/share, someone who buys a share for $50 basically gives the seller $40 that he was not entitled to, and which the buyer will never get back. The buyer might manage to convince someone else to pay him $60 for the share, but that simply means the new buyer is giving the the previous one $50 that he wasn't entitled to either. If the price falls back to $10, calling that fall a \"\"market correction\"\" wouldn't be a euphemism, but rather state a fact: the share was worth $10 before people sold it for crazy prices, and still worth $10 afterward. It was the market price that was in error. The important thing to focus on as a sane investor is what the stock is actually going to pay out in relation to what you put in. It's not necessary to look only at present price/earnings ratios, since some stocks may pay little or nothing today but pay handsomely next year. What's important, however, is that there be a reasonable likelihood that in the foreseeable future the stock will pay dividends sufficient to justify its cost.\""
},
{
"docid": "84528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\""
},
{
"docid": "31483",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different."
},
{
"docid": "332373",
"title": "",
"text": "As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one."
},
{
"docid": "74287",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected. The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth \"\"one year average salary\"\", but it may be only worth \"\"six months of average salary\"\", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected.\""
},
{
"docid": "557603",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \"\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\"\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\""
},
{
"docid": "263647",
"title": "",
"text": "A balance transfer is paying one debt instrument with another. While this is typically seen in credit card offers it isn't necessarily confined to credit cards. Obviously the only reason to do this is refinancing debt to a lower interest rate. You need to watch for loads on the incoming money, there may be an upwards of 5% fee. This calculation is materially different than your APR. Monthly interest charges can be estimated by taking your APR divided by 12 times your balance. So a 15% APR will have a rough monthly interest charge of 1.25%. The 5% balance transfer fee is 4x your normal interest charge. That fee is added to your balance and now you pay interest on the whole amount. You need to ensure the new rate is low enough to actually benefit you after the incoming fee."
},
{
"docid": "59147",
"title": "",
"text": "Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life. The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost. Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances. The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%."
},
{
"docid": "212988",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\""
},
{
"docid": "85229",
"title": "",
"text": "Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate. See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work. Rental property is a whole different prospect. Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost. See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property. Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation. Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up. Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price. Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate. In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes. This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes. Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating. Form a company. The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities. The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes. The company can pay you a salary. So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks. Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary. That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away. You might even consider two companies. One to own the property and lease it to a property management company. The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR: Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy. Same for taxes from an accountant. Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway). Incorporate and have the company take all the risks."
},
{
"docid": "42301",
"title": "",
"text": "You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split)."
},
{
"docid": "445994",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace."
},
{
"docid": "94949",
"title": "",
"text": "> At the current share price we (i.e. U.S. taxpayers) have lost $16 billion in the bailout. Do you realize that this is an improvement? An year ago, [it was estimates at 19 billion, down from the original 40 billion loss](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/auto-bailouts-estimated-cost-to-taxpayers-19-billion/)"
}
] |
3789 | How to work around the Owner Occupancy Affidavit to buy another home in less than a year? | [
{
"docid": "459724",
"title": "",
"text": "Danger. The affidavit is a legal document. Understand the risk of getting caught. If you are planning on using the condo to generate income the chances that you default on the loan are higher than an owner occupied property. That is why they demand more down payment (20%+) and charge a higher rate. The document isn't about making sure you spend 183+ nights a year in the property, it is making sure that it isn't a business, and you aren't letting a 3rd party live in the property. If you within the first year tell the mortgage company to send the bill to a new address, or you change how the property is insured, they will suspect that it is now a rental property. What can they do? Undo the loan; ask for penalty fee; limit your ability to get a mortgage in the future; or a percentage of the profits How likely is it? The exact penalty will be in the packet of documents you receive. It will depend on which government agency is involved in the loan, and the lenders plan to sell it on the secondary market. It can also depend on the program involved in the sale of the property. HUD and sister agencies lock out investors during the initial selling period, They don't want somebody to represent themselves as homeowner, but is actually an investor. Note: some local governments are interested not just in non-investors but in properties being occupied. Therefore they may offer tax discounts to residents living in their homes. Then they will be looking at the number of nights that you occupy the house in a year. If they detect that you aren't really a resident living in the house, that has tax penalties. Suggestion: If you don't want to wait a year buy the condo and let the loan officer know what your plan is. You will have to meet the down payment and interest rate requirements for an investment property. Your question implies that you will have enough money to pay the required 20% down payment. Then when you are ready buy the bigger house and move in. If you try and buy the condo with a non-investment loan you will have to wait a year. If you try and pay cash now, and then get a home equity loan later you will have to admit it is a rental. And still have to meet the investor requirements."
}
] | [
{
"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": "134764",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "40069",
"title": "",
"text": "How long will that transition take? And why did you get into construction? I ask because I'm curious about how geography, the number of jobs in your area in that particular field, your perception of job options, why you chose that occupation at the time, and how long you expect your transition from one job to another to take. Those things factor into other arguments going on about this article and I'm curious how that information relates to myself and others. You mentioned CC debt as building the trade deficit and that isn't entirely true, at least from what I've read about the deficit. The deficit is a symptom/outcome of some of which you know, but the decisions businesses make to outsource doesn't just add to that, but builds a skill deficit. Manufacturing is a good example of businesses outsourced and that skill seeing less and less entry level work due to it, which inhibits choice of income. As for wages, a lot of countries have minimum wage laws, but to suggest one or another is disastrous for an entire country ignores a variety of economic factors that lead to a crap economy."
},
{
"docid": "290782",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\""
},
{
"docid": "334185",
"title": "",
"text": "\"IMO the right path usually depends on how long you depend on staying in the home and how much you put down. The idea behind paying the higher rate is that you can easily recoup $0.25-35 on the dollar in taxes if you go with the higher rate -- at least for the first few years. But that \"\"benefit\"\" becomes less valuable over time, as you pay more interest in the beginning of the loan. It's a good deal in many cases, as the trend over the last few years is to put 5% or less down, and most people stay in homes for around 7 years. In your case, you are putting down a substantial down payment, and with only 4 years to 80% LTV (or less, if the market improves), taking the lower rate with PMI makes more sense.\""
},
{
"docid": "300554",
"title": "",
"text": "Personally I would hold off on buying a house until you have the credit card paid down even more or paid off completely so that it is one less bill you have to worry about and once it is paid off you free up that much more money to maintain the home. Likewise, you also have a lot of variables right now and the resolution of those variables will affect how much you can afford in the way of a home. The less surprises the better. As I'm sure you know, being a home owner can be quite expensive and if something ends to be repaired then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, at least when you are renting that falls onto someone else. Likewise, unless you are confident that the market has bottomed out by you, you might find that you are underwater on the mortgage once everything is said and done. If you want to start making process towards buying a home though, you could check to see if any of the local banks or credit unions have some sort of savings program where you get higher interest rates in exchange for designating the savings for the down payment on a mortgage. Likewise, you could just find a high yield savings account and start making automatic transfers into it every month."
},
{
"docid": "317945",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\""
},
{
"docid": "546187",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\""
},
{
"docid": "289594",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "150721",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm guessing it depends on how much you'd be paying for membership. If you save more than the membership costs you and you actually use the products you buy and they don't get thrown away, then it's worth it. I'm not a member of a warehouse club but I do have a membership for another wholesale outlet, so I know a little bit about buying in bulk. You need to take the same approach to buying goods wholesale as you would in an ordinary outlet, and do a few more things besides. Things like writing a list and sticking to it, making that list logically, so that you minimise the amount of time you spend walking around the shop. The less you see, the less you are likely to buy. Don't be taken in by offers, it's only a bargain if it's something you would have bought anyway. Don't shop on an empty stomach or with you children. And with bulk buying, you have to stick to things with long dates, unless your family gets through something at a phenomenal rate. Things like pet food are good, sugar too if you do a lot of home baking, that kind of thing. Toilet paper and kitchen roll are great to buy in bulk if you have the storage space and toothbrushes are good too. You'll always need them, always need to replace them, they don't take up much space and don't have a use by. The rules differ from family to family. Look at what your family uses and how much time it takes to get through something. That's the best place to start."
},
{
"docid": "213975",
"title": "",
"text": ">means less demand for absurdly priced homes which means prices will drop to affordable levels. Rent and home prices are obviously variable but in my area home prices are pretty aligned with rents. Assuming both home prices and rent goes up with inflation and accounting for insurance, taxes, tax advantages, maintenance and a list of other issues the prices are comparable. If you have the capital for a down payment and plan to stay in one house (or aparment) for 5 years you are probably better off buying. To say home prices are absurd you need to be comparing it to what you consider it's true worth but how are you determining that? Edit: Perhaps both rent and home prices will go down as more people live with their parents and room mates but I haven't seen that trend start yet and vacancy rates aren't that high (as far as I know) so I don't see it starting soon. If that trend did start I imagine new construction would be the first ones to go but housing developments are going strong around me."
},
{
"docid": "266649",
"title": "",
"text": "The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so. Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders. Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure. That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it."
},
{
"docid": "220127",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective. Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as \"\"world champions in savings\"\", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job. Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the \"\"usual\"\" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan).\""
},
{
"docid": "570064",
"title": "",
"text": "This was a really unusual deal because a fund owned by one of the owners of the company was buying much of the shares. Seems that maybe someone at the company realized that they could get an IPO for much less than 7% because the bank wasn't really doing much work or taking much risk for their cut. And that nobody figured to put contingencies for this in a contract because how often does it happen. Edit: do people even read the articles for these things? >>When you do an IPO where an existing shareholder (and company director) is buying half the deal, that's not quite the same as doing an IPO where the banks are just selling shares to investors that the banks dig up. And when that shareholder decides that he'd rather not buy, his escape is not so much refusing to pay for his shares as it is trying to get the deal pulled. If VBL sues the banks, they can turn around and sue VBL saying that this is a backdoor way of getting out of their contract."
},
{
"docid": "372615",
"title": "",
"text": "If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing."
},
{
"docid": "228774",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of this advice applies to the UK, where I work in motor insurance pricing for a large personal lines insurer, but a lot of it is more general. A loyal customer is usually an overpaying customer. The guiding priciple most financial services companies go by is that there's no point rewarding loyalty except to create it where none exists, i.e. by giving massive discounts to desirable new customers. Shop around every time your policy comes up for renewal, and whenever your circumstances change. Never allow your policy to automatically renew - you may be charged a higher premium by default if you do! Phone up your current insurer and haggle to see if they can beat the best quote you find - their agents will usually be able offer a discount. If applicable in your country, use price comparison websites. Use at least two - different insurers sometimes offer different rates on different sites, competing harder on some than on others, especially if the price comparison website happens to be owned by one of the insurance companies that quotes on it. One example of this is http://www.confused.com, which is owned by RSA group, a major insurer. If there are no price comparison websites for your country, try purchasing your policy through a broker. They'll get quotes from a panel of insurers and offer you the cheapest. They can be especially helpful if you have a problematic driving history, e.g. drink-driving convictions, as many mainstream insurers will decline to quote for such people. Other suggestions Chris Rea's answer is a good starting point, but I would disagree about cutting back on cover. In the UK at least, many insurers often charge an equal or greater amount for lower levels of cover, because the people who choose these policies tend to be worse risks. Re switching vehicles - a cheap old car will not necessarily be much cheaper to insure than a new expensive one, as you can still injure people with it or crash into other people's cars, and the newer car will probably have better safety features. However, a less powerful and smaller vehicle typically poses less of a threat to others and will therefore be cheaper to insure. Another tactic not mentioned so far is 'reverse fronting'. 'Fronting', where the main driver poses as an additional driver and nominates a less risky driver as the main driver, is illegal, but the reverse - adding a less risky driver as an additional driver - is legal and can sometimes reduce premiums. This is because only one of you can drive the car at any one time, and sometimes it'll be the less risky one. So, especially if you're male and aged < 25, see if adding your safest parent as a named driver makes a difference. If you have the choice of storing your car on a driveway or on the street, get quotes for both and see which is cheaper. If you live in an area where burglary is commonplace, thieves are more likely to steal cars left on driveways, as they can break into the owner's home and steal the keys. If not, the driveway is better, as it reduces the risk of a collision. If you have previously driven another vehicle (e.g. motorbike or moped), or if you've been insured as an additional driver on someone else's car, call up insurers directly and ask if they can offer you a no-claims bonus for this. Quotes from price comparison websites tend to limit you to the numbers of years of no-claims you've accrued as a main driver, and may not reflect your full available no-claims bonus. Extreme measures Some insurers give you the option to install a tracking device in your car that can tell them various things, e.g. Some people may be uncomfortable sharing this much information with their insurer, but for particularly risky drivers (I'm looking at you, males < 25) it can sometimes result in a substantial saving. One insurer that offers this is http://www.insurethebox.com/. Finally, if every insurer you can find is quoting in excess of £10,000 for a year's cover, you may find it cheaper instead to purchase a vintage agricultural vehicle and get it covered on a specialist farmer's policy: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864501-teen-quoted-17k-for-car-insurance-resorts-to-driving-tractor"
},
{
"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": "140775",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First and foremost, being \"\"cool\"\" stops being a thing you have to worry about once you graduate from secondary school. Nobody's really going to care what car you drive; the ones that do care aren't worth maintaining personal friendships or relationships with. The notable exception would be a sales job, requiring you to look successful to be successful, and in that case you'll need to either have a nice-looking car or buy one very quickly. Also, consider what you're buying. An E46 (which for the U.S. crowd was the previous generation of 3-series coupes and sedans) will be, at best, a 6-year-old car, and they made these as long ago as '98 which would make it 15 years old. The standard in the U.S. is to put about 10k miles (which would be about 17k km) per year on it, so you would expect even the newest E46s to have at least 100 000 km on them. At this point, even the best cars start needing increasing amounts of maintenance, and on a BMW that maintenance doesn't come cheap. Consider why a BMW would be sold. It sounds cliche, but in the U.S. at least there are three \"\"tiers\"\" of used car in the luxury class; there are the one- and two-year-olds, used by the dealer as a loaner or owned by the type of guy who buys a new car every year; they're practically new, for 30-50% off sticker, and a great deal when you find them. There are the 15-year-old (or older) cars which were used up and traded in; the majority of these end up auctioned off and cannibalized for parts with the remaining hulk sold for salvage. Then there are the in-betweens; between three and ten years old, you get a wide variety. This car could have been garaged all its life and driven to and from work and around town before its owner got a raise and decided to splurge, or its previous owner could have driven the wheels off all over the continent for work or travel. It could have a major problem that developed or was discovered after the warranty expired (and there isn't an E46 on the road that's still under warranty) which caused the owner to sell. Overall, I would wait until you have your first real job to spend real money on a car like this; the one that will actually pay the bills with enough left over for fun. When you're making 35k a year with only your own personal expenses, as long as you manage your debt well and don't get in trouble with credit, you should have no trouble buying a car like this (or even a newer one). If you are going to buy used even then, I recommend you do your homework on required maintenance for the brand and in general, what each milestone will cost you, and (based on mileage) how soon, and I would find a reputable used car dealer (which is stereotypically a contradiction in terms, but there are guys out there who aren't out to completely screw you over).\""
},
{
"docid": "321361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have said, congratulations on saving up 75K in cash while seemingly not neglecting other areas of personal finance. Considering that only 15% of Americans have more than 10K saved this is quite a feat. source If you sell your old house, and buy the new one you will still be in really good financial shape. No need to comment further. Renting your current home and buying a new home introduces a great amount of risk into your life. The risk in this case is mitigated by cash. As others have pointed out, you will need to save a lot more to remove an acceptable amount of risk. Here is what I see: So without paying off your existing house I would see a minimum savings account balance of about double of what you have now. Once you purchase the new house, the amount would be reduced by the down payment, so you will only have about 50K sitting around. The rental emergency fund may be a little light depending on how friendly your state is to landlords. Water heaters break, renters don't pay, and properties can sit vacant. Also anytime you move into a new business there will be mistakes made that are solved by writing checks. Do you have experience running rentals? You might be better off to sell your existing home, and move into a more expensive home than what you are suggesting. You can continue to win at money without introducing a new factor into your life. Alternatively, if you are \"\"bitten by the real estate bug\"\" you could mitigate a lot risk by buying a property that is of similar value to your current home or even less expensive. You can then choose which home to live in that makes the most financial sense. For example some choose to live in the more dilapidated home so they can do repairs as time permits. To me upgrading the home you live in, and renting an expensivish home for a rental is too much to do in such a short time frame. It is assuming far too much risk far to quickly for a person with your discipline. You will get there.\""
}
] |
3789 | How to work around the Owner Occupancy Affidavit to buy another home in less than a year? | [
{
"docid": "274573",
"title": "",
"text": "Although it may be a little late for you, the real answer is this: When you close on a mortgage for a primary residence you are affirming (in an affidavit), two intents: Now, these are affirming intentions — not guarantees; so if a homeowner has a change of circumstance, and cannot meet these affirmed intentions, there is almost always no penalty. Frankly, the mortgage holder's primary concern is you make payments on time, and they likely won't bother with any inquiry. That being said, should a homeowner have a pattern of buying primary residences, and in less than 1 year converting that primary to a rental, and purchasing a new primary; there will likely be a grounds for prosecution for mortgage fraud. In your specific situation, you cannot legally sign the owner-occupancy affidavit with the intention of not staying for 1 year. A solution would be to purchase the condo as a second home, or investment; both of which you can still typically get 80% financing. A second home is tricky, I would ask your lender what their requirements are for 2nd home classification. Outside that, you could buy the condo as a primary, stay in it for a year, then convert. If you absolutely had to purchase the 2nd property before 1 year, you could buy it as a primary with a 2 month rent back once you reach 10 months. Should you need it earlier, just buy the 2nd house as an investment, then once you move in, refinance it as a primary. This last strategy requires some planning ahead and you should explain your intention to the loan officer ahead of time so they can properly price the non-owner occupied loan."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "570064",
"title": "",
"text": "This was a really unusual deal because a fund owned by one of the owners of the company was buying much of the shares. Seems that maybe someone at the company realized that they could get an IPO for much less than 7% because the bank wasn't really doing much work or taking much risk for their cut. And that nobody figured to put contingencies for this in a contract because how often does it happen. Edit: do people even read the articles for these things? >>When you do an IPO where an existing shareholder (and company director) is buying half the deal, that's not quite the same as doing an IPO where the banks are just selling shares to investors that the banks dig up. And when that shareholder decides that he'd rather not buy, his escape is not so much refusing to pay for his shares as it is trying to get the deal pulled. If VBL sues the banks, they can turn around and sue VBL saying that this is a backdoor way of getting out of their contract."
},
{
"docid": "496752",
"title": "",
"text": "As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate. All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible. It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher. In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid. If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal. The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house. You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college. You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time. Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income. In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income. If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that. For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later. It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason. Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off. Then if you lose your job then, you only have to worry about taxes and upkeep but that means you can still lose the home. If you instead take the extra money and keep a rainy day fund, you'll have access to that money if you hit a rough patch. If you put all of your extra cash in the house, you'll be forced to sell if you need that capital and it may not be at the best time. You might not even be able to pay off the loan at the current market value. My father took out a 30 year loan and followed the advice of an older coworker to 'buy as much house as possible because inflation will pay for it'. By the end of the loan, he was paying something like $250 a month and the house was worth upwards of $200K. That is, his mortgage payment was less than the payment on a cheap car. It was an insignificant cost compared to his income and he had been able to invest enough to retire in comfort. Of course when he bought it, inflation was above 10% so it's bit different today but the same concepts still apply, just different numbers. I personally would not take anything less than a 30 year loan at current rates unless I planned to retire in 15 years."
},
{
"docid": "317945",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\""
},
{
"docid": "174016",
"title": "",
"text": "They will just break the company up into subsidiaries. A smaller company will run the mail room, another will run the computer repair, yet another will run the sales team and so on an so forth. There will be one small executive company that runs all those companies and siphons all the revenue from all of the subsidiaries. Using your scheme they can make you a 30% owner of a subsidiary that services another subsidiary and makes no money at all and in fact is a money loser and stock options will mean nothing. Major motion pictures do something similar: each movie is its own entity/company, lets call it BigExpensiveMovie397 Co., that is only around for a single movie. BigExpensiveMovie397 then hires other companies to do the work: catering, set building, production and everything else that makes a movie. And here is the fun part: if BigExpensiveMove397 is a hit, then it will pay a lot of licensing fees to yet other corporations that allowed it the use of its characters, story and anything else they can think of. Those licensing fees tend to *always* be more that whatever profit BigExpensiveMove397 makes. And that is how movies like LOTR is a money loser...no matter how much money it makes. Which is why the convinced Congress to ban using actual money with HSX... There is no way to beat such accounting. The only choice is not to take jobs like that. But since we are competing with the World and a good annual salary is $6K a year....we have a long way to go down to hit equilibrium."
},
{
"docid": "518949",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you need will depend on a number of factors that aren't clear from the question. This coverage is simply called \"\"Vacant home insurance\"\", but not all companies are willing to offer this coverage. Unfortunately, in New York, insurers can also legally drop your standard homeowners' coverage if they become aware that your property has become vacant for 30 days or more. The Insurer's Concerns Typically, a \"\"standard\"\" homeowners policy will have an exclusion clause for vacant homes. The insurance company's concern is that without someone in the home, they will be at risk for break-ins, squatters and vandalism. If you've ever seen \"\"Flip Men\"\" on Spike, you'll know this is a serious concern (great show, by the way). They will use a risk model to calculate an estimated risk for the property (this is why a seasonal vacation home in a sparsely-populated area is often less of a concern than a family home in an urban area). If they estimate the risk to be low, some insurance companies will allow to you buy back that exclusion so that vacant properties are covered. In your case, they have probably decided that either: Your Options First, you need to find a company that is comfortable with taking on the extra risk of a vacant home. This will vary quite a bit by location, but the main ones are Farmer's (they use the Foremost brand name in New York) and Castle Rock. There are lots of insurance agencies that also advertise these products, but most of them are middlemen and use one of these two companies to actually write the coverage. Additionally, since this is a specialty policy, make sure you understand all of the details of the policy, and how they vary from a regular policy including: How to Reduce your Premium costs These are general tips from the Murray Group's website (an independent broker in NY) on how to lower the additional cost of vacant coverage: This may sound expensive, but these steps will all reduce the risk of something really bad happening when you're not there. Additionally, do you know anyone you completely trust (relative, unemployed friend) that might want to live in your old house rent-free for a while? This could work out for you if they are willing to keep the place 100% clean around the clock so that you can show the house at any time. If you have additional/specific questions, you should be able to find an independent insurance broker in your area that would be willing to advise you on your specific situation for a flat fee. Best of luck with getting the home covered and sold quickly!\""
},
{
"docid": "523949",
"title": "",
"text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful."
},
{
"docid": "106145",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're looking for some formula, I don't think one exists. People talk about this all the time and give conflicting advice. If there was a proven-accurate formula, they wouldn't be debating it. There are basically 3 reasons to do a home improvement project: (a) Correct a problem so that you prevent on-going damage to your home. For example, have a leaking roof patched or replaced, or exterminate termites. Such a job is worthwhile if the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of future damage. In the case of my termite and leaking roof examples, this is almost always worth doing. Lesser maintenance problems might be more debatable. Similarly, some improvements may reduce expenses. Like replacing an old furnace with a newer model may cut your heating bills. Here the question is: how long does it take to repay the investment, compared to other things you might invest your money in. Just to make up numbers: Suppose you find that a new furnace will save you $500 per year. If the new furnace costs $2000, then it will take 4 years to pay for itself. I'd consider that a good investment. If that same $2000 furnace will only cut your heating bills by $100 per year, then it will take 20 years to pay for itself. You'd probably be better off putting the $2000 into the stock market and using the gains to help pay your heating bill. (b) Increase the resale value of your home. If you are paying someone else to do the work, the harsh reality here is: Almost no job will increase the resale value by more than the cost of getting the job done. I've seen many articles over the years citing studies on this. I think most conclude that kitchen remodeling comes closet to paying for itself, and bathrooms come next. New windows are also up there. I don't have studies to prove this, but my guesses would be: Replacing something that is basically nice with a different style will rarely pay for itself. Like, replacing oak cabinets with cherry cabinets. Replacing something that is in terrible shape with something decent is more likely to pay back than replacing something decent with something beautiful. Like if you have an old iron bathtub that's rusting and falling apart, replacing it may pay off. If you have a 5-year-old bathtub that's in good shape but is not premium, top of the line, replacing it with a premium bathtub will probably do very little for resale value. If you can do a lot of the work yourself, the story changes. Many home improvement jobs don't require a lot of materials, but do require a lot of work. If you do the labor, you can often get the job done very cheaply, and it's likely that the increase in resale value will be more than what you spend. For example, most of my house has hardwood floors. Lots of people like pretty hardwood floors. I just restained the floors in two rooms. It cost me, I don't know, maybe $20 or $30 for stain and some brushes. I'm sure if I tried to sell the house tomorrow I'd get my twenty bucks back in higher sale value. Realtors often advise sellers to paint. Again, if you do it yourself, the cost of paint may be a hundred dollars, and it can increase the sale price of the house by thousands. Of course if you do the work yourself, you have to consider the value of your time. (c) To make your home more pleasant to live in. This is totally subjective. You have to make the decision on the same basis that you decide whether anything that is not essential to survival is worth buying. To some people, a bottle of fancy imported wine is worth thousands, even millions, of dollars. Others can't tell the difference between a $10,000 wine and a $15 wine. The thing to ask yourself is, How important is this home improvement to me, compared to other things I could do with the money? Like, suppose you're considering spending $20,000 remodeling your kitchen. What else could you do with $20,000? You could buy a car, go on an elaborate vacation, eat out several times a week for years, retire a little earlier, etc. No one can tell you how much something is worth to you. Any given home improvement may involve a combination of these factors. Like say you're considering that $20,000 kitchen remodeling. Say you somehow find out that this will increase the resale value by $15,000. If the only reason you were considering it was to increase resale value, then it's not worth it -- you'd lose $5,000. But if you also want the nicer kitchen, then it is fair to say, Okay, it will cost me $20,000, but ultimately I'll get $15,000 of that back. So in the long run it will only cost me $5,000. Is having a nicer kitchen worth $5,000 to me? Note, by the way, that resale value only matters if and when you sell the house. If you expect to stay in this house for 20 years, any improvements done are VERY long-term investments. If you live in it until you die, the resale value may matter to your heirs."
},
{
"docid": "134764",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "76120",
"title": "",
"text": "Well first problem is usually that you are trying to do too much, you end up micro managing, once a company becomes large enough this is impossible to keep doing at the same level. If you find that you don't have enough time maybe it's time to either hire someone new, or promote/transfer someone. You need to trust and give freedom to your employees to do their job in their own way which may or may not be better than yours. (Communicate with each at intervals.) A lot of business owners struggle with this because it costs them money, and that is wrong it's cost your company money which is a separate entity than you. A piece of property that makes you less money than the week before is still making you money you are not losing money. So get that out of your head, it's not your money until you take it out of the business until then that money including profits are the property of the business (this is how the law see it by the way.) Marginally an understaffed store will make a larger percentage of profits from revenue, a well staffed store will make more actual profits from more actual revenue because it can handle the business coming into the store better, which in turns should lead to more business. On a particular day you may see more money in profit from an understaffed store, someone calls out let's say, but trust me when I say that will not continue for very long. On of the biggest challenges new business owners face is they are fugal, as in they don't spend the money they need to. This means buying new equipment, and hiring and giving raises and promotions, so you can handle new business as well. Let say you are making T-Shirts, or really adding new designs to pre-made plain shirts, you can only press one at a time which for a while is enough, but eventually you are going to need another press so you can do 2 at a time, but a lot business owners will somehow expect an employee to produce more with what he has, now orders aren't being filed and you are in a panic and possibly angry but guess what you are angry at the employee not the fact you were to stupid to realize that he needs 2 presses to do the job correctly that's your own fault and you're blind to it, because you feel as if you are working twice as hard than them because of the problem you created! And let's say the problem is different now the press isn't getting hot enough and it take 20% per shirt to get it to stay on correctly and you decide to never fix it, then a light goes out then blank then blank and suddenly you realize finally all of this needs to be replaced at the same time. I've seen things like this happen, in new and old businesses things work fine for the first 5 years then normal maintenance is forgotten, have a depreciation fund ready so it doesn't feel like you are spending any money, that's what that fund is for and you put into it from the beginning, need a $2k equipment, ohh I have $4k saved for this already, it was money intended to be spent on this. But of course some of this is going to depend on the type of business you are running! And since you have provided us no details I can't give an answer for you because all businesses are different, but I feel that these things, refusing to give freedom and authority to other employees, and refusing to spend money when needed are the biggest pitfalls most business owners fall into."
},
{
"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": "140775",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First and foremost, being \"\"cool\"\" stops being a thing you have to worry about once you graduate from secondary school. Nobody's really going to care what car you drive; the ones that do care aren't worth maintaining personal friendships or relationships with. The notable exception would be a sales job, requiring you to look successful to be successful, and in that case you'll need to either have a nice-looking car or buy one very quickly. Also, consider what you're buying. An E46 (which for the U.S. crowd was the previous generation of 3-series coupes and sedans) will be, at best, a 6-year-old car, and they made these as long ago as '98 which would make it 15 years old. The standard in the U.S. is to put about 10k miles (which would be about 17k km) per year on it, so you would expect even the newest E46s to have at least 100 000 km on them. At this point, even the best cars start needing increasing amounts of maintenance, and on a BMW that maintenance doesn't come cheap. Consider why a BMW would be sold. It sounds cliche, but in the U.S. at least there are three \"\"tiers\"\" of used car in the luxury class; there are the one- and two-year-olds, used by the dealer as a loaner or owned by the type of guy who buys a new car every year; they're practically new, for 30-50% off sticker, and a great deal when you find them. There are the 15-year-old (or older) cars which were used up and traded in; the majority of these end up auctioned off and cannibalized for parts with the remaining hulk sold for salvage. Then there are the in-betweens; between three and ten years old, you get a wide variety. This car could have been garaged all its life and driven to and from work and around town before its owner got a raise and decided to splurge, or its previous owner could have driven the wheels off all over the continent for work or travel. It could have a major problem that developed or was discovered after the warranty expired (and there isn't an E46 on the road that's still under warranty) which caused the owner to sell. Overall, I would wait until you have your first real job to spend real money on a car like this; the one that will actually pay the bills with enough left over for fun. When you're making 35k a year with only your own personal expenses, as long as you manage your debt well and don't get in trouble with credit, you should have no trouble buying a car like this (or even a newer one). If you are going to buy used even then, I recommend you do your homework on required maintenance for the brand and in general, what each milestone will cost you, and (based on mileage) how soon, and I would find a reputable used car dealer (which is stereotypically a contradiction in terms, but there are guys out there who aren't out to completely screw you over).\""
},
{
"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": "41445",
"title": "",
"text": "\"And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some \"\"animal spirits\"\" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle.\""
},
{
"docid": "482963",
"title": "",
"text": "If someone owns a house that is not paid off...can someone buy it by taking another mortgage? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think the buyer would need to take another mortgage to buy it. If someone sells their home for X dollars, then the buyer needs X dollars to buy the house. How they get that money (use cash, take out a mortgage) is up to them. During the closing process, a portion of the funds generated from the sale are diverted to pay off the seller's loan and any leftover funds after closing are pocketed by the seller. What kind of offer would be most sensible? I assume that in this case the current owner of the house would want to make a profit. The amount that the house is sold for is determined by the market value of their home, not by the size of the mortgage they have left to pay off. You make the same offer whether they own their home or have a mortgage."
},
{
"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": "334391",
"title": "",
"text": "The idea you present is not uncommon, many have tried it before. It would be a great step to find landlords in your area and talk to them about lessons learned. It might cost you a lunch or cup of coffee but it could be the best investment you make. rent it out for a small profit (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) Given the median price of a home is ~220K, and you are investing 44K, you are looking to make between a 6 and 11% profit. I would not classify this as small in the current interest rate environment. One aspect you are overlooking is risk. What happens if a furnace breaks, or someone does not pay their rent? While some may advocate borrowing money to buy rental real estate all reasonable advisers advocate having sufficient reserves to cover emergencies. Keep in mind that 33% of homes in the US do not have a mortgage and some investment experts advocate only buying rentals with cash. Currently owning rental property is a really good deal for the owners for a variety of reasons. Markets are cyclical and I bet things will not be as attractive in 10 years or so. Keep in mind you are borrowing ~220K or whatever you intend to pay. You are on the hook for that. A bank may not lend you the money, and even if they do a couple of false steps could leave you in a deep hole. That should at least give you pause. All that being said, I really like your gumption. I like your desire and perhaps you should set a goal of owning your first rental property for 5 years from now. In the mean time study and become educated in the business. Perhaps get your real estate license. Perhaps go to work for a property management company to learn the ins and outs of their business. I would do this even if I had a better paying full time job."
},
{
"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": "292718",
"title": "",
"text": "Buying a car is a very big financial decision. There are three major factors to decide which car to buy: Pick two because you can't have all three. You can either have a reliable car that has cheap running costs but will be expensive to buy or a cheap car that is unreliable. If you are mechanically minded then reliability might not be that important to you. However, if you must get to work on time every day then owning a car that breaks down once every six months might be something you wish to avoid. There are a lot of hidden costs that should be thought about very carefully when considering purchasing a car: In my country, annual car registration costs are around $650. I budget around $1000 for maintenance each year (a major + minor service and some extra repair work). When I factor in an amount for depreciation, that brings the running costs of the car to somewhere between $1500 and $2000 per annum before I've driven it anywhere. Generally I will fill up my car for $50 around once a month (I don't drive too often) which makes my total cost of ownership somewhere around $2500 per annum. When I was driving my car to work daily, the petrol costs were much higher at around $50 per week, which made my TCO somewhere around $4500 p.a. And this is on an extremely reliable, fuel efficient 2006 model car which cost me $18k to purchase. I have no debt on this car. But the car itself is a liability. Any car will be a liability. I understand that petrol prices are ridiculously low in the US and probably registration is lower as well. In this case you will need to adjust your figures and do the maths to work out what your annual cost of ownership will be. There are three alternatives to car ownership to consider which may save you money: Public transportation and car pooling are highly recommended from a financial perspective, though you may not have access to either in your situation. Moving closer to work may also be an option, though for many jobs this may increase your cost of living. If you decide that you do need a car and decide that $2000 is not going to get you the car you feel you need ($2000 usually does not get you much), you will need to decide how to finance the car. You will want to avoid most dealer-based finance deals. Be very wary of any dealer offering interest free finance as they usually have some pretty nasty conditions. Getting a loan from your parents or another family member is usually the best option. Otherwise consider getting a personal loan, which will have a lower interest rate than a credit card or dealer finance. Another option could be to get a credit card on an interest-free promotional deal which you could pay down before the interest kicks in. Be warned though, these deals usually require you to pay off your whole balance before the due date or they will back-charge interest on the whole amount. In short, these are the decisions that you will need to make:"
},
{
"docid": "3893",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service. In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years. The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an \"\"owner occupied\"\" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some \"\"too good to be true\"\" deals are still out there.\""
}
] |
3789 | How to work around the Owner Occupancy Affidavit to buy another home in less than a year? | [
{
"docid": "492856",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with \"\"less than 20%\"\" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan. If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total). Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?). Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo \"\"in cash\"\" later. Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it. So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose. In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard. It's not immediately clear if \"\"rent backs\"\" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional \"\"non owner occupied\"\" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing). Or buy one as a \"\"secondary residency\"\" mortgage? Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like \"\"geographic distance\"\" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you \"\"will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control\"\" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case. Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them. Might not hurt to ask.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "470388",
"title": "",
"text": "The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later."
},
{
"docid": "334391",
"title": "",
"text": "The idea you present is not uncommon, many have tried it before. It would be a great step to find landlords in your area and talk to them about lessons learned. It might cost you a lunch or cup of coffee but it could be the best investment you make. rent it out for a small profit (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) Given the median price of a home is ~220K, and you are investing 44K, you are looking to make between a 6 and 11% profit. I would not classify this as small in the current interest rate environment. One aspect you are overlooking is risk. What happens if a furnace breaks, or someone does not pay their rent? While some may advocate borrowing money to buy rental real estate all reasonable advisers advocate having sufficient reserves to cover emergencies. Keep in mind that 33% of homes in the US do not have a mortgage and some investment experts advocate only buying rentals with cash. Currently owning rental property is a really good deal for the owners for a variety of reasons. Markets are cyclical and I bet things will not be as attractive in 10 years or so. Keep in mind you are borrowing ~220K or whatever you intend to pay. You are on the hook for that. A bank may not lend you the money, and even if they do a couple of false steps could leave you in a deep hole. That should at least give you pause. All that being said, I really like your gumption. I like your desire and perhaps you should set a goal of owning your first rental property for 5 years from now. In the mean time study and become educated in the business. Perhaps get your real estate license. Perhaps go to work for a property management company to learn the ins and outs of their business. I would do this even if I had a better paying full time job."
},
{
"docid": "234862",
"title": "",
"text": "According to McKinsey, the consultancy, it took six months for the US economy to recover its pre-recession jobs level after the 1982 downturn. Following the 1991 recession, that had risen to 15 months. After 2001, it took 39 months – meaning that the economy required almost the full business cycle to regain the jobs total bequeathed by the previous one. Following the Great Recession of 2008, McKinsey forecast that the economy would take 60 months to reach the pre-downturn jobs level. That now looks optimistic. In December 2007, the US economy employed 146m people. Four years later, it languishes at 140m. At the current rate of job creation it will take another two and a half years to regain 2007 levels – taking the replacement cycle to as much as 78 months. This is destruction minus the creativity. Even that understates the problem, since in that time the population will have risen by more than 10m. “I know companies that employ senior engineers whose only job is to find ways to reduce the headcount,” says Carl Camden, chief executive of Kelly Services, a booming staffing agency based in Michigan. “The name of the game everywhere is to reduce permanent headcount and we are still only at the early stages of this trend.” The second problem stems from the first – America is employing a decreasing proportion of its people. At the start of the recession, the employment-to-population rate was 62.7 per cent. The rate is now 58.5 per cent. Last month, unemployment fell from 9 per cent to 8.6 per cent. On the surface, this looked like a welcome leap in job creation. In reality, more than half of the fall was accounted for by a decrease in the numbers “actively seeking” work. The 315,000 who dropped out of the labour market far exceeded the 120,000 new jobs. According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 per cent. Some have moved from claiming unemployment benefits to disability benefits, and have thus permanently dropped out of the labour force. Others have fallen back on the charity of relatives. Others still have ended up in prison. In 1982 there were just over 500,000 in jail; today there are 2.5m – more than the combined population of Atlanta, Boston, Seattle and Kansas City, according to the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Center, a Washington-based think-tank. Finally, a growing share of whatever jobs the economy is still managing to create is in the least productive areas. Of the five occupations forecast by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be the fastest growing between now and 2018, none requires a degree. These are registered nurses, “home health aides”, customer service representatives, food preparation workers and “personal home care aides”. Manufacturing is nowhere in the top 20, and such jobs cannot replace the pay and conditions once typical of that sector. “The food preparation industry cannot sustain a middle class,” says Dan DiMicco, chief executive of Nucor, one of America’s two remaining big steel companies, whose company motto is “a nation that builds and makes things”. The tides are not with Mr DiMicco. According to a study this year by Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from Stanford University, and Sandile Hlatshwayo, all net job creation since 1990 has been in the “non-tradable sector”. Between 1990 and 2008, the US added 27.3m jobs, of which almost every one was in services. Almost half were in healthcare or the public sector – both areas in which productivity growth is virtually zero. Conversely, manufacturing’s impressive productivity growth has tracked its shrinking headcount. If there is an explanation as to why middle-class incomes have stagnated in the past generation, this is it: whatever jobs the US is able to create are in the least efficient sectors – the types that neither computers nor China have yet found a way of eliminating. That trend is starting to lap at the feet of more highly educated American workers. And, as the shift continues, higher-paying jobs are also increasingly at risk, argue Prof Spence and Ms Hlatshwayo. What, then, can be done to revitalise the increasingly sclerotic jobs market? If the answer were simple, it would have been on everyone’s lips a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the challenges America faces, and thus little consensus among economists or policymakers on the best remedies. However, almost everyone agrees on how to ensure the situation does not deteriorate. Top of the list is a better education system for all stages of life. Alas, rebooting an increasingly mediocre school system is easier said than done. Nor is permanent reskillling realistic for large chunks of the workforce. There may be lessons to be learnt from nations such as Germany, particularly on vocational education, but there is little federal appetite to apply them. “Every American is going to have to get used to the idea of a completely different work style,” says Mr Camden, whose company farms out hundreds of thousands of temporary workers around the world, from lawyers to office assistants. “What you learnt in college five years ago may already be obsolete.” Perhaps inevitably, given the fiscal climate, education and training budgets have gone in the wrong direction in the past few years. State schools and vocational community colleges derive much of their funding from local property taxes. That model brings two big disadvantages. First, it means community colleges are victims of “zip code apartheid” – the lower the property values in an area, the less money there is to train the workforce or educate the children. Second, it deprives communities of the fiscal stabilisers that they need during a prolonged home foreclosures crisis. The areas worst hit by the housing crisis have experienced some of the steepest education cuts. By contrast, some of the best community colleges have kept their heads well above water. But most budgets have taken a nosedive at a time when demand for retraining has surged. “It is absurd that we withdraw support from the community colleges just when they most need it,” says Prof Autor. Economists also agree on the need for a panoply of other measures – from higher spending on infrastructure, with the quality of roads and airports now rapidly approaching second world status, to a more sensible immigration policy that encourages the most talented foreign students to remain in the US. Most also call for far higher public spending on research and development, as well as better private incentives. The US now has one of the least generous R&D tax credits in the developed world. Taken together, these reforms would have an impact – but few believe they would transform the picture. “The truth is that we don’t know how to fix the US labour market – we are in uncharted territory,” says Peter Orszag, Mr Obama’s former budget director, now a vice-chairman of Citi. “It would help to spend more on retraining and on infrastructure and to have a more rational immigration system. But these wouldn’t fundamentally transform the situation for the middle class ... It is not yet clear what, if anything, could.”"
},
{
"docid": "518949",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you need will depend on a number of factors that aren't clear from the question. This coverage is simply called \"\"Vacant home insurance\"\", but not all companies are willing to offer this coverage. Unfortunately, in New York, insurers can also legally drop your standard homeowners' coverage if they become aware that your property has become vacant for 30 days or more. The Insurer's Concerns Typically, a \"\"standard\"\" homeowners policy will have an exclusion clause for vacant homes. The insurance company's concern is that without someone in the home, they will be at risk for break-ins, squatters and vandalism. If you've ever seen \"\"Flip Men\"\" on Spike, you'll know this is a serious concern (great show, by the way). They will use a risk model to calculate an estimated risk for the property (this is why a seasonal vacation home in a sparsely-populated area is often less of a concern than a family home in an urban area). If they estimate the risk to be low, some insurance companies will allow to you buy back that exclusion so that vacant properties are covered. In your case, they have probably decided that either: Your Options First, you need to find a company that is comfortable with taking on the extra risk of a vacant home. This will vary quite a bit by location, but the main ones are Farmer's (they use the Foremost brand name in New York) and Castle Rock. There are lots of insurance agencies that also advertise these products, but most of them are middlemen and use one of these two companies to actually write the coverage. Additionally, since this is a specialty policy, make sure you understand all of the details of the policy, and how they vary from a regular policy including: How to Reduce your Premium costs These are general tips from the Murray Group's website (an independent broker in NY) on how to lower the additional cost of vacant coverage: This may sound expensive, but these steps will all reduce the risk of something really bad happening when you're not there. Additionally, do you know anyone you completely trust (relative, unemployed friend) that might want to live in your old house rent-free for a while? This could work out for you if they are willing to keep the place 100% clean around the clock so that you can show the house at any time. If you have additional/specific questions, you should be able to find an independent insurance broker in your area that would be willing to advise you on your specific situation for a flat fee. Best of luck with getting the home covered and sold quickly!\""
},
{
"docid": "187590",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no \"\"ROI\"\" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your \"\"RIO\"\" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year.\""
},
{
"docid": "212540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\""
},
{
"docid": "326970",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price."
},
{
"docid": "479213",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "323063",
"title": "",
"text": ">Very different. Gas station takes way less time... I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THIS. Again - as I have pointed out *three* *times* now - this is a tradeoff I accept, because for 90% of my driving, I can charge at home, which takes NONE of my time. If I add up ALL of my time spent standing around fueling my car, my total time is much LESS than yours, because my car charges while I sleep, I NEVER visit any gas stations, and charge stations are only visited on rare occasions (long trips.) DO YOU GET THIS POINT YET? I absolutely, completely understand you don't want to make the same tradeoff I do. If you don't get this point, or don't care how much total time you spend pumping gas, DON'T BUY AN EV. Now don't tell me AGAIN how much longer it takes to do a fast charge versus a fillup. Respond to what I am actually saying. RE: waiting to charge, this is rare. Superchargers typically have 6-12 stalls, and Tesla is tripling chargers in the next year."
},
{
"docid": "574941",
"title": "",
"text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?"
},
{
"docid": "65835",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\""
},
{
"docid": "300554",
"title": "",
"text": "Personally I would hold off on buying a house until you have the credit card paid down even more or paid off completely so that it is one less bill you have to worry about and once it is paid off you free up that much more money to maintain the home. Likewise, you also have a lot of variables right now and the resolution of those variables will affect how much you can afford in the way of a home. The less surprises the better. As I'm sure you know, being a home owner can be quite expensive and if something ends to be repaired then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, at least when you are renting that falls onto someone else. Likewise, unless you are confident that the market has bottomed out by you, you might find that you are underwater on the mortgage once everything is said and done. If you want to start making process towards buying a home though, you could check to see if any of the local banks or credit unions have some sort of savings program where you get higher interest rates in exchange for designating the savings for the down payment on a mortgage. Likewise, you could just find a high yield savings account and start making automatic transfers into it every month."
},
{
"docid": "460054",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Seems to me you don't have a ton of great choices, but of them: Keep going as you are. If/when the car becomes unusable without significant expenses, stop using it. Buy another junker and use that to get by until your loan is paid off. From now until then, put aside a few hundred (or whatever you can, if more) each month towards the anticipated purchase. When you do buy this junker, pay in cash - no loan. Just get something that will take you to work, and that includes \"\"bike\"\" if that's a possibility. When you can, sell the no longer usable car to finish paying off the loan. Start aggressively paying off the current loan, with the eye of getting it down to where you're not underwater anymore. Then sell the car and dispose of the loan, and buy a better replacement. Scrimp and save and cut everything - eat cheaply (and never out), cut your personal expenses everywhere you can. If you get another $250 a month towards principal, you can probably be no-longer-underwater in about a year. Get a personal loan today for the amount that you're underwater, and immediately sell the car. This gets you out of the loan and car the quickest, and if you think the car will devalue significantly between now and when you might be not underwater anymore, this might be the best option. But it's the most expensive, likely - you'll pay 12% to 20% on the difference. Now, 12% of $5000 is less than 5% of 15000, so it might actually be a good financial deal - but you'll probably have to shop around to get 12-15% with a 660 (though it's probably possible). You'll still be without a car at this point, though, so you'd have to buy another one (or live without for a while), and you'd still have a payment of some sort, but perhaps a more manageable one ($5000 @ 12% @ 5 years means something a bit over $100 a month, for example.) I recommend that if you can get by without a car for a while, option 2 is your best bet. All of these will require some financial care for a while, and probably cutting back on expenses for a year or two; but realistically, you shouldn't expect anything else. Get a budgeting app if it will help see how to do this. As far as getting out of the loan without paying it, I don't recommend that at all. Your credit will be ruined for at least seven years, and 660 is not bad at all really, and then would take yet more years to recover. You will likely be sued for the balance plus collection costs, beyond repossession. The consequences would be far, far worse than just paying it off, and I mean that financially as well as ethically.\""
},
{
"docid": "220127",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective. Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as \"\"world champions in savings\"\", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job. Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the \"\"usual\"\" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan).\""
},
{
"docid": "545800",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The general answer to this is \"\"yes\"\". When you're dealing with single-digit millionaires, the answer is that their insurance habits and needs are basically the same as everyone else. When you get into the double digit and triple digit millionaires, or people worth billions, they have additional options, but those basically boil down to using \"\"self-insurance\"\" rather than paying a company for an insurance policy. The following is based on both what I've read and a fair deal of personal experience working for or with various stripes of millionaire, and even one billionaire. Addressing the types of insurance you mention: This is generally used to provide survivors with a replacement for income you can no longer provide when dead, in addition to paying for costs associated with dying (funeral, hospital/hospice bills, etc). Even millionaires and billionaires have this, yes, but the higher your net worth, the less value it has. If you're worth 9 or 10 figures, you probably already have trust funds set up for your family members, so an extra payout from an insurance policy is probably going to represent a small fraction of the wealth you're leaving your survivors, and as has been noted, insurance makes a profit, so the expectation by the insurance company is that they'll make more money on the policy than they'll have to pay out on death. That being said, the members of the 9+ figure club I've worked for all had multi-million dollar life insurance policies on them, which were paid for or heavily subsidized by the companies they owned or worked for. I doubt they would have held those policies if they had to pay the full cost, but when it's free or cheap, why not? Absolutely. As health insurance in America is an untaxed employment benefit, owing to regulations from World War II, all the wealthy folks I've had contact with got outrageously good plans as part of the companies they work for or owned. Having said that, even their trust fund beneficiaries held health insurance, because this type of insurance (in America, at least) is actually not really insurance, it's more of a pre-payment plan for medical expenses, and as such, it provides broader access to health care than you'd get from simply having enough money to pay for whatever treatments you need. If you walk into a hospital as a millionaire and state that you'll definitely be able to pay for your open-heart surgery with cash, you'll get a very different response than if you walk in with your insurance card and your \"\"diamond-level\"\" coverage. So, in this case, it's not as much as about the monetary benefits (although this is a type of \"\"insurance\"\" that's generally free or heavily discounted to the individual, so that's a factor) as it is about easier access to health care. Although this is required by law, it's one of the common forms of insurance that the very wealthy can, and often do handle differently than the rest of us. Most (if not all) US states have a provision to allow motorists to self-insure themselves, which amount to putting up a bond to cover claims against them. Basically, you deposit the minimum amount the state determines is required for auto insurance with the responsible state organization, get a certificate of self-insurance and you're good to go. All the high wealth individuals I know when this route, for two reasons - first of all, they didn't have to deal with insurance companies (or pay sky-high rates on account of all the speeding tickets they picked up) and secondly, they made their deposit with government bonds they had in their portfolios anyway, and they could still collect the interest on their self-insurance deposits. Of course, this meant that if they wrecked or dinged up their Maserati or Bentley or whatever, they'd be out of pocket to repair or replace it... but I guess if you can afford one $200,000 car, you can afford to buy a second one if you wreck it, or get by riding one of your other luxury automobiles instead. Since someone else mentioned kidnapping insurance, I'll point out here that what Robert DeNiro did in Casino when he put a couple million dollars into a safety deposit box for his wife to use if he was kidnapped or needed to pay off a government official is essentially the same thing as \"\"self-insurance\"\". Putting money away somewhere for unexpected events in lieu of buying an insurance policy against them. In real life, the very wealthy will often do this with US treasuries, government bonds and other interest-bearing, safe investments. They make a little money, diversify their portfolios and at the same time, self-insure against a potential big loss. This is another insurance area where even the very wealthy are remarkably similar to the rest of us, in that they all generally have it, yes, although the reason is a little different. For normal folks, the home they own is generally the largest part of their net worth, or at least a very substantial fraction, for those older folks with retirement savings that exceed the value of their homes. So for us, we have home owners insurance to prevent a catastrophic event from wiping out the lion's share of our net worth. If you're an ultra-wealthy individual who can afford an 8 figure home, that's not really the case (at least with the ones I've dealt with, who made their fortunes in business and are good managing their wealth and diversifying their assets - could be different for sports stars or the entertainment industry), and these people generally own multiple homes anyway, so it's not as big a deal if they lose one. However, no one actually buys a multi-million dollar home by writing a multi-million dollar check. They get a mortgage, just like the rest of us. And to get a mortgage, insurance on the property is a requirement. So yes, even the ultra wealthy generally have insurance on their home(s). There is an element of not wanting to shell out another 20 million if the place burns down, or someone breaks in and steals your valuables, but the bigger part of the reason is that it's required to get a mortgage in the first place, which is generally done for financial reasons - interest on your mortgage is a tax deduction, and you don't want to sink millions of dollars all at once into buying a property that's not going to appreciate in value, when you can get a mortgage and invest those millions of dollars to make more money instead.\""
},
{
"docid": "289594",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "494211",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood."
},
{
"docid": "106145",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're looking for some formula, I don't think one exists. People talk about this all the time and give conflicting advice. If there was a proven-accurate formula, they wouldn't be debating it. There are basically 3 reasons to do a home improvement project: (a) Correct a problem so that you prevent on-going damage to your home. For example, have a leaking roof patched or replaced, or exterminate termites. Such a job is worthwhile if the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of future damage. In the case of my termite and leaking roof examples, this is almost always worth doing. Lesser maintenance problems might be more debatable. Similarly, some improvements may reduce expenses. Like replacing an old furnace with a newer model may cut your heating bills. Here the question is: how long does it take to repay the investment, compared to other things you might invest your money in. Just to make up numbers: Suppose you find that a new furnace will save you $500 per year. If the new furnace costs $2000, then it will take 4 years to pay for itself. I'd consider that a good investment. If that same $2000 furnace will only cut your heating bills by $100 per year, then it will take 20 years to pay for itself. You'd probably be better off putting the $2000 into the stock market and using the gains to help pay your heating bill. (b) Increase the resale value of your home. If you are paying someone else to do the work, the harsh reality here is: Almost no job will increase the resale value by more than the cost of getting the job done. I've seen many articles over the years citing studies on this. I think most conclude that kitchen remodeling comes closet to paying for itself, and bathrooms come next. New windows are also up there. I don't have studies to prove this, but my guesses would be: Replacing something that is basically nice with a different style will rarely pay for itself. Like, replacing oak cabinets with cherry cabinets. Replacing something that is in terrible shape with something decent is more likely to pay back than replacing something decent with something beautiful. Like if you have an old iron bathtub that's rusting and falling apart, replacing it may pay off. If you have a 5-year-old bathtub that's in good shape but is not premium, top of the line, replacing it with a premium bathtub will probably do very little for resale value. If you can do a lot of the work yourself, the story changes. Many home improvement jobs don't require a lot of materials, but do require a lot of work. If you do the labor, you can often get the job done very cheaply, and it's likely that the increase in resale value will be more than what you spend. For example, most of my house has hardwood floors. Lots of people like pretty hardwood floors. I just restained the floors in two rooms. It cost me, I don't know, maybe $20 or $30 for stain and some brushes. I'm sure if I tried to sell the house tomorrow I'd get my twenty bucks back in higher sale value. Realtors often advise sellers to paint. Again, if you do it yourself, the cost of paint may be a hundred dollars, and it can increase the sale price of the house by thousands. Of course if you do the work yourself, you have to consider the value of your time. (c) To make your home more pleasant to live in. This is totally subjective. You have to make the decision on the same basis that you decide whether anything that is not essential to survival is worth buying. To some people, a bottle of fancy imported wine is worth thousands, even millions, of dollars. Others can't tell the difference between a $10,000 wine and a $15 wine. The thing to ask yourself is, How important is this home improvement to me, compared to other things I could do with the money? Like, suppose you're considering spending $20,000 remodeling your kitchen. What else could you do with $20,000? You could buy a car, go on an elaborate vacation, eat out several times a week for years, retire a little earlier, etc. No one can tell you how much something is worth to you. Any given home improvement may involve a combination of these factors. Like say you're considering that $20,000 kitchen remodeling. Say you somehow find out that this will increase the resale value by $15,000. If the only reason you were considering it was to increase resale value, then it's not worth it -- you'd lose $5,000. But if you also want the nicer kitchen, then it is fair to say, Okay, it will cost me $20,000, but ultimately I'll get $15,000 of that back. So in the long run it will only cost me $5,000. Is having a nicer kitchen worth $5,000 to me? Note, by the way, that resale value only matters if and when you sell the house. If you expect to stay in this house for 20 years, any improvements done are VERY long-term investments. If you live in it until you die, the resale value may matter to your heirs."
},
{
"docid": "76120",
"title": "",
"text": "Well first problem is usually that you are trying to do too much, you end up micro managing, once a company becomes large enough this is impossible to keep doing at the same level. If you find that you don't have enough time maybe it's time to either hire someone new, or promote/transfer someone. You need to trust and give freedom to your employees to do their job in their own way which may or may not be better than yours. (Communicate with each at intervals.) A lot of business owners struggle with this because it costs them money, and that is wrong it's cost your company money which is a separate entity than you. A piece of property that makes you less money than the week before is still making you money you are not losing money. So get that out of your head, it's not your money until you take it out of the business until then that money including profits are the property of the business (this is how the law see it by the way.) Marginally an understaffed store will make a larger percentage of profits from revenue, a well staffed store will make more actual profits from more actual revenue because it can handle the business coming into the store better, which in turns should lead to more business. On a particular day you may see more money in profit from an understaffed store, someone calls out let's say, but trust me when I say that will not continue for very long. On of the biggest challenges new business owners face is they are fugal, as in they don't spend the money they need to. This means buying new equipment, and hiring and giving raises and promotions, so you can handle new business as well. Let say you are making T-Shirts, or really adding new designs to pre-made plain shirts, you can only press one at a time which for a while is enough, but eventually you are going to need another press so you can do 2 at a time, but a lot business owners will somehow expect an employee to produce more with what he has, now orders aren't being filed and you are in a panic and possibly angry but guess what you are angry at the employee not the fact you were to stupid to realize that he needs 2 presses to do the job correctly that's your own fault and you're blind to it, because you feel as if you are working twice as hard than them because of the problem you created! And let's say the problem is different now the press isn't getting hot enough and it take 20% per shirt to get it to stay on correctly and you decide to never fix it, then a light goes out then blank then blank and suddenly you realize finally all of this needs to be replaced at the same time. I've seen things like this happen, in new and old businesses things work fine for the first 5 years then normal maintenance is forgotten, have a depreciation fund ready so it doesn't feel like you are spending any money, that's what that fund is for and you put into it from the beginning, need a $2k equipment, ohh I have $4k saved for this already, it was money intended to be spent on this. But of course some of this is going to depend on the type of business you are running! And since you have provided us no details I can't give an answer for you because all businesses are different, but I feel that these things, refusing to give freedom and authority to other employees, and refusing to spend money when needed are the biggest pitfalls most business owners fall into."
}
] |
3789 | How to work around the Owner Occupancy Affidavit to buy another home in less than a year? | [
{
"docid": "571131",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Look into the definition of \"\"primary residence\"\" for your jurisdiction(s). In some states, living in the home for 183 days qualifies it as your primary residence for the entire year.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "140775",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First and foremost, being \"\"cool\"\" stops being a thing you have to worry about once you graduate from secondary school. Nobody's really going to care what car you drive; the ones that do care aren't worth maintaining personal friendships or relationships with. The notable exception would be a sales job, requiring you to look successful to be successful, and in that case you'll need to either have a nice-looking car or buy one very quickly. Also, consider what you're buying. An E46 (which for the U.S. crowd was the previous generation of 3-series coupes and sedans) will be, at best, a 6-year-old car, and they made these as long ago as '98 which would make it 15 years old. The standard in the U.S. is to put about 10k miles (which would be about 17k km) per year on it, so you would expect even the newest E46s to have at least 100 000 km on them. At this point, even the best cars start needing increasing amounts of maintenance, and on a BMW that maintenance doesn't come cheap. Consider why a BMW would be sold. It sounds cliche, but in the U.S. at least there are three \"\"tiers\"\" of used car in the luxury class; there are the one- and two-year-olds, used by the dealer as a loaner or owned by the type of guy who buys a new car every year; they're practically new, for 30-50% off sticker, and a great deal when you find them. There are the 15-year-old (or older) cars which were used up and traded in; the majority of these end up auctioned off and cannibalized for parts with the remaining hulk sold for salvage. Then there are the in-betweens; between three and ten years old, you get a wide variety. This car could have been garaged all its life and driven to and from work and around town before its owner got a raise and decided to splurge, or its previous owner could have driven the wheels off all over the continent for work or travel. It could have a major problem that developed or was discovered after the warranty expired (and there isn't an E46 on the road that's still under warranty) which caused the owner to sell. Overall, I would wait until you have your first real job to spend real money on a car like this; the one that will actually pay the bills with enough left over for fun. When you're making 35k a year with only your own personal expenses, as long as you manage your debt well and don't get in trouble with credit, you should have no trouble buying a car like this (or even a newer one). If you are going to buy used even then, I recommend you do your homework on required maintenance for the brand and in general, what each milestone will cost you, and (based on mileage) how soon, and I would find a reputable used car dealer (which is stereotypically a contradiction in terms, but there are guys out there who aren't out to completely screw you over).\""
},
{
"docid": "262028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For the future: NEVER buy a car based on the payment. When dealers start negotiating, they always try to have you focus on the monthly payment. This allows them to change the numbers for your trade, the price they are selling the car for, etc so that they maximize the amount of money they can get. To combat this you need to educate yourself on how much total money you are willing to spend for the vehicle, then, if you need financing, figure out what that actually works out to on a monthly basis. NEVER take out a 6 year loan. Especially on a used car. If you can't afford a used car with at most a 3 year note (paying cash is much better) then you can't really afford that car. The longer the note term, the more money you are throwing away in interest. You could have simply bought a much cheaper car, drove it for a couple years, then paid CASH for a new(er) one with the money you saved. Now, as to the amount you are \"\"upside down\"\" and that you are looking at new cars. $1400 isn't really that bad. (note: Yes you were taken to the cleaners.) Someone mentioned that banks will sometimes loan up to 20% above MSRP. This is true depending on your credit, but it's a very bad idea because you are purposely putting yourself in the exact same position (worse actually). However, you shouldn't need to worry about that. It is trivial to negotiate such that you pay less than sticker for a new car while trading yours in, even with that deficit. Markup on vehicles is pretty insane. When I sold, it was usually around 20% for foreign and up to 30% for domestic: that leaves a lot of wiggle room. When buying a used car, most dealers ask for at least $3k more than what they bought them for... Sometimes much more than that depending on blue book (loan) value or what they managed to talk the previous owner out of. Either way, a purchase can swallow that $1400 without making it worse. Buy accordingly.\""
},
{
"docid": "300554",
"title": "",
"text": "Personally I would hold off on buying a house until you have the credit card paid down even more or paid off completely so that it is one less bill you have to worry about and once it is paid off you free up that much more money to maintain the home. Likewise, you also have a lot of variables right now and the resolution of those variables will affect how much you can afford in the way of a home. The less surprises the better. As I'm sure you know, being a home owner can be quite expensive and if something ends to be repaired then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, at least when you are renting that falls onto someone else. Likewise, unless you are confident that the market has bottomed out by you, you might find that you are underwater on the mortgage once everything is said and done. If you want to start making process towards buying a home though, you could check to see if any of the local banks or credit unions have some sort of savings program where you get higher interest rates in exchange for designating the savings for the down payment on a mortgage. Likewise, you could just find a high yield savings account and start making automatic transfers into it every month."
},
{
"docid": "574941",
"title": "",
"text": "Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?"
},
{
"docid": "187250",
"title": "",
"text": "\">I agree the numbers are bunk, however the 900k figure is the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of a moderate income family 60k-100k and not the actual. The problem with that... is that *sans kids* most people really don't have much incentive to work all that hard. * You don't need anywhere NEAR as big of a house (heck, as a single or childless couple, you don't need a house, you can easily just rent a small studio or 1 BR apartment). * You don't need a minivan (or \"\"crossover\"\" or whatever the heck they call the equivalent of a station wagon these days). * You are feeding a LOT less people. * You don't need to worry about keeping anyone in shoes or clothes and buying new shit every year (provided you control your weight, of course, and don't ruin good clothing or follow \"\"fashion trends\"\" like a fool). * You don't have to plan & take expensive \"\"Disney\"\" vacations for anyone, much less a group of 4 or 5 (or more) people. * You don't have anyone to \"\"send to college\"\" or a teenager to \"\"buy a car for\"\" (much less pay insurance to cover). * You can pretty much ignore the vast majority of life-insurance costs (if you're single, do you really give a shit who gets anything if/when you croak?) * Likewise with health-insurance -- dirt cheap while you're young, and even cheap when your middle aged if you have no kids (and with good reason, no \"\"pregnancy/birth\"\" costs, no vaccinations or childhood diseases, no tonsil-removal operations, etc.) * Etc. Quite seriously, **people without kids simply don't have as many REASONS to work like \"\"slaves\"\".** A single person or childless couple can easily buy a home, car and other assets and pay it all off in a few short years (certainly less than a decade) -- **and live content & fairly well on a minimal income** after that. Remember things like **cars chiefly wear down because of \"\"mileage\"\"**; and most mileage is spent either chasing after INCOME (commuting to/from a job from a home in the suburbs, said home bought \"\"to get the KIDS into a good school\"\" and \"\"to give the KIDS room to play\"\", etc) -- OR chasing round for the KIDS -- explicitly playing \"\"taxi driver\"\" carrying the kids around to/from school, team sports & other inane \"\"activities\"\". Ergo, the childless person (or couple) really doesn't HAVE to chase after the all-mighty dollar in the same way. *Instead they can enjoy life & leisure (and to paraphrase MasterCard, that can be \"\"priceless\"\").*\""
},
{
"docid": "106145",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're looking for some formula, I don't think one exists. People talk about this all the time and give conflicting advice. If there was a proven-accurate formula, they wouldn't be debating it. There are basically 3 reasons to do a home improvement project: (a) Correct a problem so that you prevent on-going damage to your home. For example, have a leaking roof patched or replaced, or exterminate termites. Such a job is worthwhile if the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of future damage. In the case of my termite and leaking roof examples, this is almost always worth doing. Lesser maintenance problems might be more debatable. Similarly, some improvements may reduce expenses. Like replacing an old furnace with a newer model may cut your heating bills. Here the question is: how long does it take to repay the investment, compared to other things you might invest your money in. Just to make up numbers: Suppose you find that a new furnace will save you $500 per year. If the new furnace costs $2000, then it will take 4 years to pay for itself. I'd consider that a good investment. If that same $2000 furnace will only cut your heating bills by $100 per year, then it will take 20 years to pay for itself. You'd probably be better off putting the $2000 into the stock market and using the gains to help pay your heating bill. (b) Increase the resale value of your home. If you are paying someone else to do the work, the harsh reality here is: Almost no job will increase the resale value by more than the cost of getting the job done. I've seen many articles over the years citing studies on this. I think most conclude that kitchen remodeling comes closet to paying for itself, and bathrooms come next. New windows are also up there. I don't have studies to prove this, but my guesses would be: Replacing something that is basically nice with a different style will rarely pay for itself. Like, replacing oak cabinets with cherry cabinets. Replacing something that is in terrible shape with something decent is more likely to pay back than replacing something decent with something beautiful. Like if you have an old iron bathtub that's rusting and falling apart, replacing it may pay off. If you have a 5-year-old bathtub that's in good shape but is not premium, top of the line, replacing it with a premium bathtub will probably do very little for resale value. If you can do a lot of the work yourself, the story changes. Many home improvement jobs don't require a lot of materials, but do require a lot of work. If you do the labor, you can often get the job done very cheaply, and it's likely that the increase in resale value will be more than what you spend. For example, most of my house has hardwood floors. Lots of people like pretty hardwood floors. I just restained the floors in two rooms. It cost me, I don't know, maybe $20 or $30 for stain and some brushes. I'm sure if I tried to sell the house tomorrow I'd get my twenty bucks back in higher sale value. Realtors often advise sellers to paint. Again, if you do it yourself, the cost of paint may be a hundred dollars, and it can increase the sale price of the house by thousands. Of course if you do the work yourself, you have to consider the value of your time. (c) To make your home more pleasant to live in. This is totally subjective. You have to make the decision on the same basis that you decide whether anything that is not essential to survival is worth buying. To some people, a bottle of fancy imported wine is worth thousands, even millions, of dollars. Others can't tell the difference between a $10,000 wine and a $15 wine. The thing to ask yourself is, How important is this home improvement to me, compared to other things I could do with the money? Like, suppose you're considering spending $20,000 remodeling your kitchen. What else could you do with $20,000? You could buy a car, go on an elaborate vacation, eat out several times a week for years, retire a little earlier, etc. No one can tell you how much something is worth to you. Any given home improvement may involve a combination of these factors. Like say you're considering that $20,000 kitchen remodeling. Say you somehow find out that this will increase the resale value by $15,000. If the only reason you were considering it was to increase resale value, then it's not worth it -- you'd lose $5,000. But if you also want the nicer kitchen, then it is fair to say, Okay, it will cost me $20,000, but ultimately I'll get $15,000 of that back. So in the long run it will only cost me $5,000. Is having a nicer kitchen worth $5,000 to me? Note, by the way, that resale value only matters if and when you sell the house. If you expect to stay in this house for 20 years, any improvements done are VERY long-term investments. If you live in it until you die, the resale value may matter to your heirs."
},
{
"docid": "133020",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is what I was able to find: Yes, but there are special instructions for minors: Working hours: New York State labor laws are slightly more strict than the federal: https://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/nyvsfed.shtm Minimum wage: The Dept of Labor's Youth & Labor page states: Occupations such as babysitting are not subject to the minimum wage law. No supporting documentation is given. Another page describes the Youth Minimum Wage Program: A minimum wage of not less than $4.25 may be paid to employees under the age of 20 for their first 90 consecutive calendar days However, I can't find any such exception in New York State minimum wage law. According to Publication 926, Household Employer's Tax Guide: Federal income tax withholding No, I am not required to withhold federal income taxes from a household employee. If we both want them to be withheld, a W-4 should be submitted to me. State income tax withholding No, according to NYS Pub 27: Withholding income tax (federal or New York State) from wages paid to household employees is voluntary on your part and your employee Social security and medicare No, I am not required to withhold FICA taxes because when calculated wages, I should not include: An employee who is under the age of 18 at any time during the year. Exception: Count these wages if providing household services is the employee's principal occupation. If the employee is a student, providing household services is not considered to be his or her principal occupation. Unemployment insurance No, I don't think I have to pay federal unemployment tax. I think the exception for FICA applies to FUTA. For New York (according to Household Employers Guide for Unemployment Insurance), there is an exception for paying state unemployment insurance: Daytime students who attend elementary or high school (However, you must pay UI taxes on wages you pay these students if you are liable under FUTA.) I can't find any specific requirements, but aside from numbers of hours times rate of pay, you might want to consider the information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act: Also, consider this requirements from the NY Minimum Wage Act Every employer shall keep true and accurate records of hours worked by each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid to all employees, and such other information as the commissioner deems material and necessary, and shall, on demand, furnish to the commissioner or his duly authorized representative a sworn statement of the same."
},
{
"docid": "334185",
"title": "",
"text": "\"IMO the right path usually depends on how long you depend on staying in the home and how much you put down. The idea behind paying the higher rate is that you can easily recoup $0.25-35 on the dollar in taxes if you go with the higher rate -- at least for the first few years. But that \"\"benefit\"\" becomes less valuable over time, as you pay more interest in the beginning of the loan. It's a good deal in many cases, as the trend over the last few years is to put 5% or less down, and most people stay in homes for around 7 years. In your case, you are putting down a substantial down payment, and with only 4 years to 80% LTV (or less, if the market improves), taking the lower rate with PMI makes more sense.\""
},
{
"docid": "125613",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How can I use a house I own free and clear to purchase another home? Answer: walk in to any bank, that's any bank, or any lending institution. State that you own a house free and clear. This will happen: In all jurisdictions, it's incredibly easy to borrow large amounts of money at the lowest possible rate, once you own a house outright. On top of that, you want to spend the money on another house (as opposed to s sports car or the like), so you have even more equity. Winner! Your main question will be this. Say your current house (owned outright!) is worth $500,000. Go to a bank or lender, and say to them, \"\"How much money will you give me to buy house B putting both the houses on the mortgage.\"\" One bank will say \"\"fantastic! buy any house you want up to $400,000!\"\" Another will say \"\"$450,000!\"\" another will say \"\"$300,000!\"\" In a hot market another will say \"\"$650,000!\"\". So shop around and see who will give you the most.\""
},
{
"docid": "482963",
"title": "",
"text": "If someone owns a house that is not paid off...can someone buy it by taking another mortgage? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think the buyer would need to take another mortgage to buy it. If someone sells their home for X dollars, then the buyer needs X dollars to buy the house. How they get that money (use cash, take out a mortgage) is up to them. During the closing process, a portion of the funds generated from the sale are diverted to pay off the seller's loan and any leftover funds after closing are pocketed by the seller. What kind of offer would be most sensible? I assume that in this case the current owner of the house would want to make a profit. The amount that the house is sold for is determined by the market value of their home, not by the size of the mortgage they have left to pay off. You make the same offer whether they own their home or have a mortgage."
},
{
"docid": "150721",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm guessing it depends on how much you'd be paying for membership. If you save more than the membership costs you and you actually use the products you buy and they don't get thrown away, then it's worth it. I'm not a member of a warehouse club but I do have a membership for another wholesale outlet, so I know a little bit about buying in bulk. You need to take the same approach to buying goods wholesale as you would in an ordinary outlet, and do a few more things besides. Things like writing a list and sticking to it, making that list logically, so that you minimise the amount of time you spend walking around the shop. The less you see, the less you are likely to buy. Don't be taken in by offers, it's only a bargain if it's something you would have bought anyway. Don't shop on an empty stomach or with you children. And with bulk buying, you have to stick to things with long dates, unless your family gets through something at a phenomenal rate. Things like pet food are good, sugar too if you do a lot of home baking, that kind of thing. Toilet paper and kitchen roll are great to buy in bulk if you have the storage space and toothbrushes are good too. You'll always need them, always need to replace them, they don't take up much space and don't have a use by. The rules differ from family to family. Look at what your family uses and how much time it takes to get through something. That's the best place to start."
},
{
"docid": "286709",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Apologize - replied without actually looking at the financials. After reviewing -- Starbuck's financial statements use the line item \"\"Cost of sales including occupancy costs.\"\" This is very different than \"\"hiding\"\" rent in COGS, as they plainly describe what it represents. Anyone who wants to derive true cost of goods sold without occupancy costs can look in the footnotes of the financials to find the lease expense for the year and subtract it. This line item is used by multiple public companies (Whole Foods is one that comes to mind), and regardless of their true motives, they have convinced the SEC that they think it gives the consumer the most accurate view of their business operations. As with all financial statements, the footnotes play a crucial role in understanding how a business works. If you want to find opportunities for future value or an Achilles heel, look in the notes.\""
},
{
"docid": "228774",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of this advice applies to the UK, where I work in motor insurance pricing for a large personal lines insurer, but a lot of it is more general. A loyal customer is usually an overpaying customer. The guiding priciple most financial services companies go by is that there's no point rewarding loyalty except to create it where none exists, i.e. by giving massive discounts to desirable new customers. Shop around every time your policy comes up for renewal, and whenever your circumstances change. Never allow your policy to automatically renew - you may be charged a higher premium by default if you do! Phone up your current insurer and haggle to see if they can beat the best quote you find - their agents will usually be able offer a discount. If applicable in your country, use price comparison websites. Use at least two - different insurers sometimes offer different rates on different sites, competing harder on some than on others, especially if the price comparison website happens to be owned by one of the insurance companies that quotes on it. One example of this is http://www.confused.com, which is owned by RSA group, a major insurer. If there are no price comparison websites for your country, try purchasing your policy through a broker. They'll get quotes from a panel of insurers and offer you the cheapest. They can be especially helpful if you have a problematic driving history, e.g. drink-driving convictions, as many mainstream insurers will decline to quote for such people. Other suggestions Chris Rea's answer is a good starting point, but I would disagree about cutting back on cover. In the UK at least, many insurers often charge an equal or greater amount for lower levels of cover, because the people who choose these policies tend to be worse risks. Re switching vehicles - a cheap old car will not necessarily be much cheaper to insure than a new expensive one, as you can still injure people with it or crash into other people's cars, and the newer car will probably have better safety features. However, a less powerful and smaller vehicle typically poses less of a threat to others and will therefore be cheaper to insure. Another tactic not mentioned so far is 'reverse fronting'. 'Fronting', where the main driver poses as an additional driver and nominates a less risky driver as the main driver, is illegal, but the reverse - adding a less risky driver as an additional driver - is legal and can sometimes reduce premiums. This is because only one of you can drive the car at any one time, and sometimes it'll be the less risky one. So, especially if you're male and aged < 25, see if adding your safest parent as a named driver makes a difference. If you have the choice of storing your car on a driveway or on the street, get quotes for both and see which is cheaper. If you live in an area where burglary is commonplace, thieves are more likely to steal cars left on driveways, as they can break into the owner's home and steal the keys. If not, the driveway is better, as it reduces the risk of a collision. If you have previously driven another vehicle (e.g. motorbike or moped), or if you've been insured as an additional driver on someone else's car, call up insurers directly and ask if they can offer you a no-claims bonus for this. Quotes from price comparison websites tend to limit you to the numbers of years of no-claims you've accrued as a main driver, and may not reflect your full available no-claims bonus. Extreme measures Some insurers give you the option to install a tracking device in your car that can tell them various things, e.g. Some people may be uncomfortable sharing this much information with their insurer, but for particularly risky drivers (I'm looking at you, males < 25) it can sometimes result in a substantial saving. One insurer that offers this is http://www.insurethebox.com/. Finally, if every insurer you can find is quoting in excess of £10,000 for a year's cover, you may find it cheaper instead to purchase a vintage agricultural vehicle and get it covered on a specialist farmer's policy: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864501-teen-quoted-17k-for-car-insurance-resorts-to-driving-tractor"
},
{
"docid": "326970",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price."
},
{
"docid": "496997",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The other answers are good, I would just like to add certain points, taking this question together with the previous ones you have asked here. How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Basically, it may well be that your best option would be to move to a smaller apartment or worse location to bring down rent, possibly forget about your own study in the worst case, sell the car and use public transportation, eat as many meals as possible at home, bring boxed lunch from home to work, if this applies, etc -- whatever makes a saving and sense to you. Regarding food, this is the point where it is usually possible to save a very significant amount, if you are prepared to make food at home. Unless you are already doing it, look around for articles such as \"\"living on 20 pounds a week\"\" or so, maybe they will give you ideas you can use (eg. How to eat on 10 pounds a week: shopping list and recipes) -- where you are shopping is crucial here as similar items can differ in price significantly between different chains. If the electricity bill is significant and you are at home a lot, you could try to bring it down by changing all bulbs in your home to LED ones, unless it has already been done. Yes, they can cost 2-3 more than eg. halogen ones, but they use 5-10x less electricity. Forget credit cards, if possible. Use debit cards so you know the money you spend does not get you into more debt. One question you asked here was about exchange rates -- if you work with different currencies a lot, there are several companies such as Revolut or N26, which offer accounts with debit cards that use near FX rates --- in my experiencee I could save around 10-15% on currency conversion EUR/GBP, using Revolut, compared to my local bank rate, for example. I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save. Well, yes. That is nearly the definition of too much debt. The point about going to the extremes of reducing expenses I outlined above, is that the more you can reduce your expenses while struggling with debt, the faster you'll get out of it. It might be hard to adapt, but it will be better, if you can calculate how long it will take to get you back on feet and know that, eg. \"\"in 6 months I can start to think of savings and carefully upgrading my lifestyle back\"\". In turn, the smaller the reduction of expenses, the more prolonged the process -- you might be looking at 2-3 years of insecure/constantly frustrating/risking more debt lifestyle, instead of 6 months of severely reduced one. Alternatively, if things go too bleak, you might consider declaring bankrupcy -- although I am not sure how feasible it is in the UK.\""
},
{
"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": "292718",
"title": "",
"text": "Buying a car is a very big financial decision. There are three major factors to decide which car to buy: Pick two because you can't have all three. You can either have a reliable car that has cheap running costs but will be expensive to buy or a cheap car that is unreliable. If you are mechanically minded then reliability might not be that important to you. However, if you must get to work on time every day then owning a car that breaks down once every six months might be something you wish to avoid. There are a lot of hidden costs that should be thought about very carefully when considering purchasing a car: In my country, annual car registration costs are around $650. I budget around $1000 for maintenance each year (a major + minor service and some extra repair work). When I factor in an amount for depreciation, that brings the running costs of the car to somewhere between $1500 and $2000 per annum before I've driven it anywhere. Generally I will fill up my car for $50 around once a month (I don't drive too often) which makes my total cost of ownership somewhere around $2500 per annum. When I was driving my car to work daily, the petrol costs were much higher at around $50 per week, which made my TCO somewhere around $4500 p.a. And this is on an extremely reliable, fuel efficient 2006 model car which cost me $18k to purchase. I have no debt on this car. But the car itself is a liability. Any car will be a liability. I understand that petrol prices are ridiculously low in the US and probably registration is lower as well. In this case you will need to adjust your figures and do the maths to work out what your annual cost of ownership will be. There are three alternatives to car ownership to consider which may save you money: Public transportation and car pooling are highly recommended from a financial perspective, though you may not have access to either in your situation. Moving closer to work may also be an option, though for many jobs this may increase your cost of living. If you decide that you do need a car and decide that $2000 is not going to get you the car you feel you need ($2000 usually does not get you much), you will need to decide how to finance the car. You will want to avoid most dealer-based finance deals. Be very wary of any dealer offering interest free finance as they usually have some pretty nasty conditions. Getting a loan from your parents or another family member is usually the best option. Otherwise consider getting a personal loan, which will have a lower interest rate than a credit card or dealer finance. Another option could be to get a credit card on an interest-free promotional deal which you could pay down before the interest kicks in. Be warned though, these deals usually require you to pay off your whole balance before the due date or they will back-charge interest on the whole amount. In short, these are the decisions that you will need to make:"
},
{
"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": "68269",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009? The conventional wisdom said: \"\"No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!\"\". The people who made money said: \"\"Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy.\"\" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment. I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)\""
}
] |
3791 | "When people say 'Interest rates are at all time low!"" … Which interest rate are they actually referring to?" | [
{
"docid": "327432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "364332",
"title": "",
"text": "The largest problem and source of anxiety / ruin for homeowners during the housing market collapse was caused by the inability to refinance. Many people had bought homes which they were stretched to afford, by using variable-rate mortgages. These would typically offer a very attractive initial rate, with an annual cap on the potential increase of rate. Many of these people intended to refinance their variable-rate to a fixed rate once terms were more favorable. If their house won't appraise for the value needed to obtain a new loan, they are stuck in their current contract with potentially unfavorable rates in the later years (9.9% above prime was not unheard of.) Also, many people, especially those in areas of high inflation in the housing market, used a financial device known as a Balloon Mortgage, which essentially forced you to get a new loan after some number of years (2, 5, 10) when the entire note became due. Some of those loans offered payments less than Principal + Interest! So, say you move near Los Angeles and can't afford the $1.2M for the 3-bedroom ranch in which you wish to live. You might work out a deal with your mortgage broker/banker in which you agree contractually to only pay $500/month, with a balloon payment of $1.4M due in 5 years, which seemed like a good deal since you (and everyone else,) actually expect the house to be 'worth' $1.5M in 5 years. This type of thing was done all the time back in the day. Now, imagine the housing bubble bursts and your $1.2M home is suddenly only valued at, perhaps, $750k. You still owe $1.4M sometime in the next several years (maybe very soon, depending on timing,) and can only get approved financing for the current $750k value -- so you're basically anticipating becoming homeless and bankrupt within the same year. That is a source of much anxiety about being upside-down on a loan. See this question for an unfortunate example."
},
{
"docid": "54638",
"title": "",
"text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\""
},
{
"docid": "517750",
"title": "",
"text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate."
},
{
"docid": "264526",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest problem is that the rate of return for a completely immunized program is really low. Especially, now, given the low rate of return, the cost of such a program makes it nearly unfeasible, unless you assumed a ridiculously low rate of return (<1% return). As it is, they're assuming a 4.5% rate of return, which is about 2% above inflation, a very very conservative forecast. Plus, not every pension plan could immunize their plans. All that does is shift interest rate risk (btw, not the only type of risk that exists, there's credit risk as well. To get rid of both, you'd be getting marginally above 0% return, not something you can run a pension plan on). So, you'd have to have someone or some set of people that have a very large and very unnatural interest rate risk. If you had a large move in rates, it would demolish those people, which would completely invalidate those hedges. It's much better for the economy on whole that pension plans are able to take credit and interest rate risk."
},
{
"docid": "180148",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a couple of different things that could be referenced by \"\"cheap money\"\": The money supply itself - This is the Federal Reserve printing more money which could devalue the existing US dollars and thus make the dollars even cheaper since there would be more of them. Interest rates - Currently in the US interest rates are rather low which means that borrowers could possibly get good rates on that money thus making it relatively cheap. Compare current interest rates to the early 1980s and there is a major difference. In terms of implications on the stock market, there are a couple that come to my mind: Investment options - With low interest rates, cash and bonds aren't necessarily yielding that much and thus some people may be more likely to invest elsewhere with stocks being an option. Thus, there may be some people that would rather invest in stocks than hold their investments in lower-yielding options. Corporate spending - If rates stay low, then for companies with good financial track records, they could borrow money to expand operations rather than sell more stock and thus there may be companies that borrow to grow so that they take advantage of these interest rates.\""
},
{
"docid": "368044",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\""
},
{
"docid": "87057",
"title": "",
"text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones."
},
{
"docid": "574011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\""
},
{
"docid": "188672",
"title": "",
"text": "Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying."
},
{
"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": "235522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\""
},
{
"docid": "346064",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past."
},
{
"docid": "495556",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> If you have five to eight dictators fighting at once You will quickly see these 5 to 8 dictators mutually come to the conclusion that it is not in their interests to \"\"fight it out\"\", but rather, support each other and prevent new-comers. Or, you will see mergers as we saw in the accounting and banking fields. You both knock out a competitor AND increase your market share in the process. This becomes similar to a government-sanctioned monopoly, but instead of one firm, you have 6 or 8, each recognizing that they've got a great position as gatekeepers and rent-seekers. This is similar to how the healthcare and insurance companies really don't DO very much except extract money. They over-bill the hospitals, then over-bill the customers, and profit the huge margins. Or how the government used to do student loans, then instead outsourced to the big banks to do it. Then recently they determined that hte big banks were taking tens of billions of dollars in profit for \"\"running\"\" the program. That's tens of billions of dollars of wealth simply extracted from our taxes. This is why the government under Obama decided to kick out the banker middle-men and simply issue the exact same loans with the exact same rules,a ll by themselves. Why outsource to a middleman when you can run the exact same program with tons less overhead? It's also the reason single-payer healthcare is tons more efficient over the current model, and would save our country trillions over the looong term. Not to mention, the democratization of currency you envision is truly ephemeral, a mirage. The firms the government chooses as suited enough to pay taxes basically means the government still has the final decision on which \"\"currency\"\" (bonds) to accept. What if the government then decides only ONE corp is suited to do this job, or only two? Then it's functionally no different than teh current situation. Right now, the world buys USD bonds at extremely low interest rates, and this helps fund our government and keeps our nations costs very low. Under your scenario, the government is saying \"\"We accept bonds from X, Y, or Z\"\", and so instead the world runs out to buy XYZ bonds at extremely low interest rates. Instead of giving our country the funding it needs, we're actually giving XYZ corps the low interest rates. This is basically the same downfall of letting the big banks run the student loan program: it gives the firms more power, the government less power, costs us more tax dollars, and gives those firms an undeserved higher place on the food chain. I quite simply disagree with it. I would rather our government print the bonds themselves and take the benefit of the low cost of borrowing, rather than giving XYZ corps more favorable funding to continue world-wide expansion and takeover. Furthermore, if XYZ corps are approved by the government for paying tax dollars, what do we do in the case of a fiscal emergency such as 2007 when AIG basically went bankrupt in a period of only a few months? Of course this would be SURE to happen only right AFTER tax day, AFTER the entire country buys AIG bonds, pays the government in AIG bonds, and the executives of AIG pay themselves HUGE bonuses. Then they go bankrupt, and the government is left holding ALL the IOU's which are worthless. And of course, traders, hedgers, goldman sachs, etc, would all know AIG was about to get fucked and would make trillions while the US Gov received all tax receipts in worthless paper. The fact is, with the speed big companies can fall down under the weight of their own contradictions, the danger is all too real that a full year of tax receipts simply disappears.\""
},
{
"docid": "166394",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer to almost all questions of this type is to draw a diagram. This will show you in graphical fashion the timing of all payments out and payments received. Then, if all these payments are brought to the same date and set equal to each other (using the desired rate of return), the equation to be solved is generated. In this case, taking the start of the bond's life as the point of reference, the various amounts are: Pay out = X Received = a series of 15 annual payments of $70, the first coming in 1 year. This can be brought to the reference date using the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity. PLUS Received = A single payment of $1000, made 15 years in the future. This can be brought to the reference date using the simple interest formula. Set the pay-out equal to the present value of the payments received and solve for X I am unaware of the difference, if any, between \"\"current rate\"\" and \"\"rate to maturity\"\" Finding the rate for such a series of payments would start out the same as above, but solving the resulting equation for the interest rate would be a daunting task...\""
},
{
"docid": "379492",
"title": "",
"text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US."
},
{
"docid": "179855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\""
},
{
"docid": "313669",
"title": "",
"text": "You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp."
},
{
"docid": "231195",
"title": "",
"text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs."
},
{
"docid": "209238",
"title": "",
"text": "The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment. As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually. -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t) at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the amount you started out with. If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity. That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r) A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period. N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly) PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N) r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded)"
}
] |
3791 | "When people say 'Interest rates are at all time low!"" … Which interest rate are they actually referring to?" | [
{
"docid": "577201",
"title": "",
"text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "110628",
"title": "",
"text": "> Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?"
},
{
"docid": "188672",
"title": "",
"text": "Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying."
},
{
"docid": "10790",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\""
},
{
"docid": "519596",
"title": "",
"text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate."
},
{
"docid": "107697",
"title": "",
"text": "The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take."
},
{
"docid": "64456",
"title": "",
"text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money."
},
{
"docid": "265477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on what your plans for the future are.. Taking out a loan is not a bad thing if it is at a good rate and under good terms and you are sure you can handle the payments. If you buy the car with cash you may be giving up the opportunity to later get a great rate on that $8k. However, you are probably not utilizing that $20k to make as much interest as you'd then be paying if you did take the $8k on loan. Since you say \"\"house fund\"\" I assume you are saving to make a down payment on a new house. If you plan to buy that house within the next 6 months the hard pulls on your credit report from applying for the car loan will probably ding your credit score for the next 6 months which might cost you on your mortgage rate. However, if you don't plan to buy for a few more years and if you've never had a car payment before then the auto loan would actually be adding diversity to your credit history and in the long run would help your score. Another factor to consider is the loan-to-value ratio you are shooting for. LTV affects the interest rate, requirements for private mortgage insurance, etc.. Mortgage rates are at an all-time low and lower than auto-rates, so depending on the terms of the house purchase that $8k might be better spent on the car than the house. In short, if you want to buy the house soon (rates are loooow, market is a buyer's market), and you need that $8k to get a better mortgage rate or prevent you from being required to buy PMI you should probably put it toward the house. Otherwise you should probably put it toward the car. Last piece of advice. If you absolutely must buy a house and a car in the same short time-frame, do them both on the same day so that your credit score is not dinged before applying for one or the other. With mortgages this may be difficult considering the longer closing procedures, but try to time it so that your credit is getting checked by the mortgage broker and the auto lender on the same day.\""
},
{
"docid": "231195",
"title": "",
"text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs."
},
{
"docid": "111033",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bonds are valued based on all of this, using the concept of the \"\"time value of money\"\". Simply stated, money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. Case in point: let's say the par value of a bond is $100, and will mature 10 years from this date (these are common terms for most bonds, though the U.S. Treasury has a variety of bonds with varying par values and maturation periods), with a 0% coupon rate (nothing's paid out prior to maturity). If the company or government issuing the bonds needs one million dollars, and the people buying the bonds are expecting a 5% rate of return on their investment, then each bond would only sell for about $62, and the bond issuer would have to sell a par value of $1.62 million in bonds to get its $1m now. These numbers are based on equations that calculate the \"\"future value\"\" of an investment made now, and conversely the \"\"present value\"\" of a future return. Back to that time value of money concept, money now (that you're paying to buy the bond) is worth more than money later (that you'll get back at maturity), so you will expect to be returned more than you invested to account for this time difference. The percentage of rate of return is known as the \"\"yield\"\" or the \"\"discount rate\"\" depending on what you're calculating, what else you take into consideration when defining the rate (like inflation), and whom you talk to. Now, that $1.62m in par value may be hard for the bond issuer to swallow. The issuer is effectively paying interest on interest over the lifetime of the bond. Instead, many issuers choose to issue \"\"coupon bonds\"\", which have a \"\"coupon rate\"\" determining the amount of a \"\"coupon payment\"\". This can be equated pretty closely with you making interest-only payments on a credit card balance; each period in which interest is compounded, you pay the amount of interest that has accrued, to avoid this compounding effect. From an accounting standpoint, the coupon rate lowers the amount of real monies paid; the same $1m in bonds, maturing in 10 years with a 5% expected rate of return, but with a 5% coupon rate, now only requires payments totalling $1.5m, and that half-million in interest is paid $50k at a time annually (or $25k semi-annually). But, from a finance standpoint, because the payments made in the first few years are worth more than the payments made closer to and at maturity, the present value of all these coupon payments (plus the maturity payout) is higher than if the full payout happened at maturity, and so the future value of the total investment is higher. Coupon rates on bonds thus allow a bond issuer to plan a bond package in less complicated terms. If you as a small business need $1m for a project, which you will repay in 10 years, and during that time you are willing to tolerate a 5% interest rate on the outstanding money, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1 million worth, to mature in 10 years and a 5% coupon rate. Now, whether the market is willing to accept that rate is up to the market. Right now, they'd be over the moon with that rate, and would be willing to buy the bonds for more than their face value, because the present value would then match the yield they're willing to accept (as in any market system, you as the seller will sell to the highest bidder to get the best price available). If however, they think you are a bad bet, they'll want an even higher rate of return, and so the present value of all coupon and maturity payments will be less than the par value, and so will the purchase price.\""
},
{
"docid": "265551",
"title": "",
"text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one."
},
{
"docid": "133486",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\""
},
{
"docid": "508219",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\""
},
{
"docid": "426268",
"title": "",
"text": "First consider the basic case of what you are asking: you expect to have a future obligation to pay interest, and you are concerned that the rate when you pay it, will be higher than the rate today. In the simplest case, you could theoretically hedge that risk by buying an asset which pays the market interest rate. As the interest rate rises, increasing your costs, your return on this asset would also increase. This would minimize your exposure to interest rate fluctuations. There are of course two problems with this simplified solution: (1) The reason you expect to pay interest, is because you need/want to take on debt to purchase your house. To fully offset this risk by putting all your money in an asset which bears the market interest rate, would effectively be the same as just buying your house in cash. (2) The timing of the future outflow is a bit unique: you will be locking in a rate, in 5 years, which will determine the payments for the 5 years after that. So unless you own this interest-paying asset for that whole future duration, you won't immediately benefit. You also won't need / want to buy that asset today, because the rates from today to 2022 are largely irrelevant to you - you want something that directly goes against the prevailing mortgage interest rate in 2022 precisely. So in your specific case, you could in theory consider the following solution: You could short a coupon bond, likely one with a 10 year maturity date from today. As interest rates rise, the value of the coupon bond [for it's remaining life of 5 years], which has an implied interest rate set today, will drop. Because you will have shorted an asset dropping in value, you will have a gain. You could then close your short position when you buy your house in 5 years. In theory, your gain at that moment in time, would equal the present value of the rate differential between today's low mortgage rates and tomorrow's high interest rates. There are different ways mechanically to achieve what I mention above (such as buying forward derivative contracts based on interest rates, etc.), but all methods will have a few important caveats: (1) These will not be perfect hedges against your mortgage rates, unless the product directly relates to mortgage rates. General interest rates will only be a proxy for mortgage rates. (2) There is additional risk in taking this type of position. Taking a short position / trading on a margin requires you to make ongoing payments to the broker in the event that your position loses money. Theoretically those losses would be offset by inherent gains in the future, if mortgage rates stay low / go lower, but that offset isn't in your plan for 5 years. (3) 5 years may be too long of a timeline for you to accurately time the maturity of your 'hedge' position. If you end up moving in 7 years, then changes in rates between 2022-2024 might mean you lose on both your 'hedge' position and your mortgage rates. (4) Taking on a position like this will tie up your capital - either because you are directly buying an asset you believe will offset growing interest rates, or because you are taking on a margin account for a short position (preventing you from using a margin account for other investments, to the extent you 'max out' your margin limit). I doubt any of these solutions will be desirable to an individual looking to mitigate interest rate risk, because of the additional risks it creates, but it may help you see this idea in another light."
},
{
"docid": "134764",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "264526",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest problem is that the rate of return for a completely immunized program is really low. Especially, now, given the low rate of return, the cost of such a program makes it nearly unfeasible, unless you assumed a ridiculously low rate of return (<1% return). As it is, they're assuming a 4.5% rate of return, which is about 2% above inflation, a very very conservative forecast. Plus, not every pension plan could immunize their plans. All that does is shift interest rate risk (btw, not the only type of risk that exists, there's credit risk as well. To get rid of both, you'd be getting marginally above 0% return, not something you can run a pension plan on). So, you'd have to have someone or some set of people that have a very large and very unnatural interest rate risk. If you had a large move in rates, it would demolish those people, which would completely invalidate those hedges. It's much better for the economy on whole that pension plans are able to take credit and interest rate risk."
},
{
"docid": "346064",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past."
},
{
"docid": "224918",
"title": "",
"text": "TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year."
},
{
"docid": "158793",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I was amazed to find out that many people think that credit ratings are equivalent across asset classes. Rating agencies DO NOT and CAN NOT rate assets based on market exposure. There ratings represent the assets idiosyncratic risk, obviously assets that are more exposed to the market have higher risk in a market downturn but higher reward in a boom. This is pretty well known and documented. The agencies that are paid by debt issuers are there to establish that the asset meets certain established criteria, often this involves the interest rate. Thus, as most people that are familiar with financial markets know, the major CRA's tend to be reactionary, and a much better gauge of actual credit worthiness is the market interest rate. However these ratings do have a purpose for creating standardized practices for governments and other public organizations. Subscriber based CRAs will almost always give much more accurate and detailed information, just as with everything else, if you want something done right, your gonna have to do it yourself. That said it will be interesting to see how the agencies adapt to Dodd Frank which mandates that their ratings translate across asset classes. Especially since gov debt is in a whole different tax category and thus intrinsically has lower interest rates and thus lower default rates. In the end the rating agencies are just going to have to say... \"\"well since the interest rate is under inflation we know that it is Aaa...\"\" lol Thus they are useless. In addition the rating of government debt has less to do with ability to pay back obligations and more to do with (at least in a democracy) political will. How is this supposed to be quantified?\""
},
{
"docid": "506066",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are no \"\"on-line\"\" banks in Israel. There were various attempts to create something that would look like an online bank (HaYashir HaRishon comes to mind, Mizrahi did something similar recently), but that essentially is a branch of a brick and mortar bank (Leumi and Mizrahi, respectively) that allows you online management and phone service instead of walking into a branch, not a replacement for a traditional bank. Thus there are no significant operational savings for the banks through which they could have afforded higher savings rates. I agree with the other responder that the banking system in Israel is very well regulated, but I agree with you also - it is not competitive at all. That said, at the current inflation rate and the current strength of the currency, the 2.02% that you have is actually pretty good. Israel has no interest in paying high rates on incoming money since its currency is too strong and it hurts exports, so don't expect much at home on this issue. Opening an account outside of Israel poses a different problem - tax reporting. You'll have to file an annual tax return and pay your taxes on the interest you earn, something most Israelis never have to do. That will cost you and will probably eat up much, if not all, of the gain. Also, currency fluctuations will hurt you, as no-one will open an account in Shekels outside of Israel and you'll have to convert back and forth. In fact, the first thing to happen when the rates in Israel go up would be for the currency to go down, so whatever you might gain abroad will disappear when you actually decide to move the money back. And you will still be taxed on the interest income (can't deduct capital loss from interest income). Your options, as I see them, are either the stock market or the bonds market (or, more likely, a mix). In Israel, the bonds similar to the US T-Bills (short term bonds) are called \"\"makam\"\" and you can either invest in them directly or through mutual funds. These are traded at TASE and can be held for free (banks are not allowed to charge you for holding them). They're taxed at lower rates than capital gains (15% vs 25%). During the times of low interest these may provide much better alternative than bank savings (pakam).\""
}
] |
3791 | "When people say 'Interest rates are at all time low!"" … Which interest rate are they actually referring to?" | [
{
"docid": "212222",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "179855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\""
},
{
"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": "264526",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest problem is that the rate of return for a completely immunized program is really low. Especially, now, given the low rate of return, the cost of such a program makes it nearly unfeasible, unless you assumed a ridiculously low rate of return (<1% return). As it is, they're assuming a 4.5% rate of return, which is about 2% above inflation, a very very conservative forecast. Plus, not every pension plan could immunize their plans. All that does is shift interest rate risk (btw, not the only type of risk that exists, there's credit risk as well. To get rid of both, you'd be getting marginally above 0% return, not something you can run a pension plan on). So, you'd have to have someone or some set of people that have a very large and very unnatural interest rate risk. If you had a large move in rates, it would demolish those people, which would completely invalidate those hedges. It's much better for the economy on whole that pension plans are able to take credit and interest rate risk."
},
{
"docid": "273735",
"title": "",
"text": "First, who is saying that it is a better option? In general it is best to pay cash for things when you can. I think the reality is that for most people owning a house would be very difficult without some sort of financing. That said, one argument for financing a house these days even if you could afford to pay cash is that the interest rates are very low. For a 30-year fixed loan you can borrow money under 4.5% APR with decent credit. If you are willing to accept even a little risk you could almost certainly invest that same money and get a return higher than 4.5%. With the US mortgage interest tax deduction the numbers are even more favorable for financing. Those rates look even more attractive when you consider you are paying for the house with today's dollars and paying back the loan with dollars from up to 30 years in the future, which will be worth much less."
},
{
"docid": "265477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on what your plans for the future are.. Taking out a loan is not a bad thing if it is at a good rate and under good terms and you are sure you can handle the payments. If you buy the car with cash you may be giving up the opportunity to later get a great rate on that $8k. However, you are probably not utilizing that $20k to make as much interest as you'd then be paying if you did take the $8k on loan. Since you say \"\"house fund\"\" I assume you are saving to make a down payment on a new house. If you plan to buy that house within the next 6 months the hard pulls on your credit report from applying for the car loan will probably ding your credit score for the next 6 months which might cost you on your mortgage rate. However, if you don't plan to buy for a few more years and if you've never had a car payment before then the auto loan would actually be adding diversity to your credit history and in the long run would help your score. Another factor to consider is the loan-to-value ratio you are shooting for. LTV affects the interest rate, requirements for private mortgage insurance, etc.. Mortgage rates are at an all-time low and lower than auto-rates, so depending on the terms of the house purchase that $8k might be better spent on the car than the house. In short, if you want to buy the house soon (rates are loooow, market is a buyer's market), and you need that $8k to get a better mortgage rate or prevent you from being required to buy PMI you should probably put it toward the house. Otherwise you should probably put it toward the car. Last piece of advice. If you absolutely must buy a house and a car in the same short time-frame, do them both on the same day so that your credit score is not dinged before applying for one or the other. With mortgages this may be difficult considering the longer closing procedures, but try to time it so that your credit is getting checked by the mortgage broker and the auto lender on the same day.\""
},
{
"docid": "184776",
"title": "",
"text": "When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan."
},
{
"docid": "180148",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a couple of different things that could be referenced by \"\"cheap money\"\": The money supply itself - This is the Federal Reserve printing more money which could devalue the existing US dollars and thus make the dollars even cheaper since there would be more of them. Interest rates - Currently in the US interest rates are rather low which means that borrowers could possibly get good rates on that money thus making it relatively cheap. Compare current interest rates to the early 1980s and there is a major difference. In terms of implications on the stock market, there are a couple that come to my mind: Investment options - With low interest rates, cash and bonds aren't necessarily yielding that much and thus some people may be more likely to invest elsewhere with stocks being an option. Thus, there may be some people that would rather invest in stocks than hold their investments in lower-yielding options. Corporate spending - If rates stay low, then for companies with good financial track records, they could borrow money to expand operations rather than sell more stock and thus there may be companies that borrow to grow so that they take advantage of these interest rates.\""
},
{
"docid": "506066",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are no \"\"on-line\"\" banks in Israel. There were various attempts to create something that would look like an online bank (HaYashir HaRishon comes to mind, Mizrahi did something similar recently), but that essentially is a branch of a brick and mortar bank (Leumi and Mizrahi, respectively) that allows you online management and phone service instead of walking into a branch, not a replacement for a traditional bank. Thus there are no significant operational savings for the banks through which they could have afforded higher savings rates. I agree with the other responder that the banking system in Israel is very well regulated, but I agree with you also - it is not competitive at all. That said, at the current inflation rate and the current strength of the currency, the 2.02% that you have is actually pretty good. Israel has no interest in paying high rates on incoming money since its currency is too strong and it hurts exports, so don't expect much at home on this issue. Opening an account outside of Israel poses a different problem - tax reporting. You'll have to file an annual tax return and pay your taxes on the interest you earn, something most Israelis never have to do. That will cost you and will probably eat up much, if not all, of the gain. Also, currency fluctuations will hurt you, as no-one will open an account in Shekels outside of Israel and you'll have to convert back and forth. In fact, the first thing to happen when the rates in Israel go up would be for the currency to go down, so whatever you might gain abroad will disappear when you actually decide to move the money back. And you will still be taxed on the interest income (can't deduct capital loss from interest income). Your options, as I see them, are either the stock market or the bonds market (or, more likely, a mix). In Israel, the bonds similar to the US T-Bills (short term bonds) are called \"\"makam\"\" and you can either invest in them directly or through mutual funds. These are traded at TASE and can be held for free (banks are not allowed to charge you for holding them). They're taxed at lower rates than capital gains (15% vs 25%). During the times of low interest these may provide much better alternative than bank savings (pakam).\""
},
{
"docid": "107697",
"title": "",
"text": "The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take."
},
{
"docid": "54638",
"title": "",
"text": "\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\""
},
{
"docid": "364332",
"title": "",
"text": "The largest problem and source of anxiety / ruin for homeowners during the housing market collapse was caused by the inability to refinance. Many people had bought homes which they were stretched to afford, by using variable-rate mortgages. These would typically offer a very attractive initial rate, with an annual cap on the potential increase of rate. Many of these people intended to refinance their variable-rate to a fixed rate once terms were more favorable. If their house won't appraise for the value needed to obtain a new loan, they are stuck in their current contract with potentially unfavorable rates in the later years (9.9% above prime was not unheard of.) Also, many people, especially those in areas of high inflation in the housing market, used a financial device known as a Balloon Mortgage, which essentially forced you to get a new loan after some number of years (2, 5, 10) when the entire note became due. Some of those loans offered payments less than Principal + Interest! So, say you move near Los Angeles and can't afford the $1.2M for the 3-bedroom ranch in which you wish to live. You might work out a deal with your mortgage broker/banker in which you agree contractually to only pay $500/month, with a balloon payment of $1.4M due in 5 years, which seemed like a good deal since you (and everyone else,) actually expect the house to be 'worth' $1.5M in 5 years. This type of thing was done all the time back in the day. Now, imagine the housing bubble bursts and your $1.2M home is suddenly only valued at, perhaps, $750k. You still owe $1.4M sometime in the next several years (maybe very soon, depending on timing,) and can only get approved financing for the current $750k value -- so you're basically anticipating becoming homeless and bankrupt within the same year. That is a source of much anxiety about being upside-down on a loan. See this question for an unfortunate example."
},
{
"docid": "236778",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They aren't actually. It appears to be a low interest rate, but it doesn't cover their true cost of capital. It is a sales tactic where they are raising the sticker price/principal of the car, which is subsidizing the true cost of the loan, likely 4% or higher. It would be hard to believe that the true cost of a car loan would be less than for a mortgage, as with a mortgage the bank can reclaim an asset that tends to rise in value, compared to a used car, which will have fallen in value. This is one reason why you can generally get a better price with cash, because there is a margin built in, in addition to the fact that with cash they get all their profit today versus a discount of future cash flows from a loan by dealing with a bank or other lending company. So if you could see the entire transaction from the \"\"inside\"\", the car company would not actually be making money. The government rate is also so low that it often barely covers inflation, much less operating costs and profit. This is why any time you see \"\"0% Financing!\"\", it is generally a sales tactic designed to get your attention. A company cannot actually acquire capital at 0% to lend to you at 0%, because even if the nominal interest rate were 0%, there is an opportunity cost, as you have observed. A portion of the sticker price is covering the real cost, and subsidizing the monthly payment.\""
},
{
"docid": "235522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\""
},
{
"docid": "577578",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\""
},
{
"docid": "575241",
"title": "",
"text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations"
},
{
"docid": "64456",
"title": "",
"text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money."
},
{
"docid": "257589",
"title": "",
"text": "The solution is spending restraint during the growth periods and prudent application of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, especially during the slow periods. The USA embarked on a strange experiment lead be Greenspan of excessively low interest rates for a prolonged period of time. Periods of strong economic growth should feature high interest rates, periods of reduced economic growth can then be countered somewhat through monetary policy. The government should also endeavour to run surplus budgets during the good times and not be afraid of turning those into deficit budgets in the downturns. If you run a deficit budget during a period of strong economic growth, together with low cash rates you have nowhere to move when the cycle reverses. The solution now? That is difficult. I would say that the solution now would be to raise revenues through corporate taxes and similarly increase government spending on investments aimed at stimulating the economy. Use this time to invest in the much needed infrastructure maintenance and upgrades that the USA needs. These need to be fast-tracked into action and I would therefore consider fixing infrastructure as more important than installing new infrastructure. There are probably long-term structural adjustments that need to be looked at too, but I am not intimately familiar with the USA as I am Australian. It is clear however that Austerity during economic downturns does not help end the recession (or benign growth). It is clear to me as an observer however that employment appears to be the big issue in the USA right now, so cutting jobs is not a smart move. Edit: I'll point out that my opinion comes from the Australian experience, our government ran surplus budgets during our period of recent growth and our reserve bank kept interest rates high. When the GFC hit us in 2008 the government almost instantly reversed its fiscal policy, going so far as mailing $900 cheques to every Australian just to get cash flowing in the economy, they then embarked upon infrastructure spending programs. Similarly the reserve bank were able to quickly and dramatically reduce interest rates. The result was that we saw 1 quarter of mildly negative growth, and positive growth ever since (hence no recession). We ran a textbook example of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy which is today lauded by economists over. We now have 5% unemployment, low government debt (relative to the OECD) and high economic growth (relative to the OECD)."
},
{
"docid": "507445",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, bear in mind that you're talking about having an average of ~£2000 saved up at any given time (if you spend all your stipend every quarter at a steady rate you'll start out with all of it and have none left at the end of the quarter), along with any long-term savings you manage to build up over time. In today's low-interest rate environment of ~1% interest rates, we're talking about approximately £20/year interest. So it's not worth a huge amount of effort to optimise this. You mentioned a \"\"bonus\"\", but looking at the Charter Savings website I don't actually see one listed for either the Cash ISA or the savings accounts you mention. In general, banks in the UK actually use bonus rates as a short-term measure to suck in new customers, and the bonuses typically expire after a while leaving you with a worse rate. Also, I don't think either of the rates you mention is guaranteed - they are both listed as \"\"variable\"\". In reality, I doubt they will go down too much more, given that the likely next move in UK interest rates is upwards. The typical main advantage of an ISA is its tax free nature. But from your question I assume you don't have any other income, so you won't need to pay tax on any interest you earn outside an ISA either. Also, given that your budget is quite tight and you expect to spend most or all of your stipend, there's no advantage to using an account where you can build up long-term tax-free savings. Even if you do have a few thousand pounds left over by the end of your PhD, you'll easily be able to put those into an ISA at that point given the annual limit of £20K. You're right not to want to take any risks with the money, and there aren't really any risk-free investments other than savings accounts available, at least on the timescales you're talking about. So overall I'd just go for the 1.26% return. Edit: as @marktristan's answer points out, you will probably be able to find a \"\"loss leader\"\" current account that actually offers more interest than a savings account. You'll need to either use a single current account and manage your budgeting carefully, or use a second current account as your \"\"savings\"\" account and make sure to set things up to satisfy the requirements of the account you choose, such as incoming payments or outgoing direct debits.\""
},
{
"docid": "177908",
"title": "",
"text": "profit has nothing to do with the level of interest rates. Is this correct? In theory, yes. The difference that you're getting at is called net interest margin. As long as this stays constant, so does the bank's profit. According to this article: As long as the interest rate charged on loans doesn't decline faster than the interest rate received on deposit accounts, banks can continue to operate normally or even reduce their bad loan exposure by offering lower lending rates to already-proven borrowers. So banks may be able to acquire the same net interest margin with lower risk. However the article also mentions new research from a federal agency: Their findings show that net interest margins (NIMs) get worse during low-rate environments, defined as any time when a country's three-month sovereign bond yield is less than 1.25%. So in theory banks should remain profitable when interest rates are low, but this may not actually be the case."
}
] |
3801 | Can a bunch of wealthy people force Facebook to go public? | [
{
"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": "428670",
"title": "",
"text": "Is it meant to turn Google+ into a winner? Google+ will grow naturally. It has more resources and funds than Facebook could ever dream of. Google+ has the luxury of being able to stay clean and not squeeze the user for every cent of advertising revenue. Exactly what Facebook used to have which allowed it to grow. As Facebook is forced to push on more ads, it will slowly decline just as myspace did and eventually end up having most of its users moving over to Google+."
},
{
"docid": "396066",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored."
},
{
"docid": "116419",
"title": "",
"text": "> seems determined to blow up the deficit, just has the last Republican president did. And the Republican before that. It's the only sensible thing the Republicans do. Deficit spending is stimulus, and that increases the prosperity of the public. They do it to try and provide cover for allowing the wealthy to gut our economy. What we need is to embrace stimulus wholeheartedly and then shift the entirety of the tax burden onto the wealthy."
},
{
"docid": "312619",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Would the net effect *really* be worse, though? If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means. Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives. As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public). A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse? As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite. There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back! The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as \"\"morally wrong\"\" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag. In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation. There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already. The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting.\""
},
{
"docid": "104838",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To the topic, and answering some of the questions below... People \"\"drop out\"\" of the workforce in a number of different ways: - Ideally, and most constructively, people go back to school. This might be line-cooks or fast-food workers pursuing a culinary or hospitality degree, or liberal-arts majors whose publishing job has evaporated going for a Law or MBA. If you have a desire to go back to school, a job-recession is a good time to do it. - Often, it is something where one parent in a two-parent household decides to stay home with the kids, when they can no longer earn more than day-care or pre-school costs. If Mom's job prospects are paying $12/hour, minus taxes, and child-care costs $10/hour, it often makes sense for her to stay home, at least until the kids are in public school. - Sometimes it's just genuine early-retirement. Some real-estate salesman in his 60s who was hoping to earn for a few more years sees the current glut of short-sales and foreclosures, and how hard he's going to have to work for every dollar, and decides he can live with Buick instead of Cadillac in his golden years. - Some of it is \"\"semi-forced\"\" early-retirement, where bagging groceries doesn't pay any better than social security, so an older worker decides to make ends meet. - The worst and ugliest component, and sadly a common one, is premature/unnecessary disability claims. Down job markets produce a spike in claims of permanent disability. They are not all entirely fraudulent, but inability to work due to vague-ish chronic pain, psychiatric problems, back/neck injuries from fender-benders, slip-and-falls, etc go up in recessions. There is a certain \"\"watching daytime TV with lots of lawyer commercials\"\" effect among the unemployed, and one way or another, people are vastly more likely to end up on government or insurance-based long-term disability during a bad economy.\""
},
{
"docid": "363602",
"title": "",
"text": ">Bush It didn't come out the banks committed fraud under Bush tho. Nor did it come out about the whole sub prime loan mess either. >they were trying every trick in the book in order to try and reinstil confidence in the stock market and US financial system in order to convince people to start lending money again and break the country out of a deflationary liquidity cycle I know, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have gone after the banks tho at the same time. One could argue tho that going after the banks and throwing the crooks in jail would also help install public confidence in the economy as those guys where no longer running things. >Today, even if Sears going boom tumbled a bunch of other commercial real estate firms and retail stores, it wouldn't suddenly make the banks insolvent in the short run. Totally missed the point here. Its much more has to do with who is president than anything else. Trump is gutting the government as much has possible to make it as ineffective as possible. He's going to give a pass on Eddie here."
},
{
"docid": "287325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\""
},
{
"docid": "141541",
"title": "",
"text": "Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity. I don't read them or care to read them myself. If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense? Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end. After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off. Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered? Is it people actually putting in sell order manually? Is it something else? There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here."
},
{
"docid": "45695",
"title": "",
"text": "Amazon makes enormous profits, they just re-invest nearly all of it. Their 2016 operating income was $20B (assume they spent $0 on R&D), but they did spend $16B on R&D. Which is more than what Apple spends. Facebook is more valuable than Cisco for many reasons. First off, similar net incomes on their statements doesn't mean those net incomes are as safe in the future. Facebook might have a very safe revenue stream from ads regardless if they keep updating their interfaces. Perhaps Facebook's market saturation means they don't need much infrastructure expansion in the future which would project reduced costs and higher margins. Cisco on the other hand might perpetually be in a more dangerous spot given their market position. They have competition and they might have to be in a constant battle to stay caught up. Their margins are also much less than Facebook's. Perhaps Cisco's profits are also more at risk due to changes in public policy while Facebook is more insulted? Valuation on the market goes far beyond just the profit # on the last income statement."
},
{
"docid": "362905",
"title": "",
"text": "What would be nice would be if Google+ gained some traction to the point where they could force Facebook to open a pipe so that social circles could work between Google+ and Facebook, putting them in tension. Of course, Neither CEO seems exceptionally capable of playing nicely in a sandbox even if it can benefit them, so that won't happen."
},
{
"docid": "304076",
"title": "",
"text": "> Giving people free shit turn them into vassals of the State. I think you know it is not really that simple. Does the police force teach civilians to ignore lawbreakers? Does public education cause people to only learn what is taught in schools? Do people not learn CPR because 911 exists? If people don't have the skills to manage their lives and hold down a job, wouldn't forcing them into a job guarantee failure? Would you agree they would need to first learn these skills and that probably wouldn't happen in an unstable environment?"
},
{
"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": "154951",
"title": "",
"text": "I totally see your point about not seeing into the future, infrastructure has to take into account so many variables it's often very difficult to plan these things I can see why a major project might take months on end, if not years. I'm okay with (private or public) companies doing the bare minimum and saving a few dollars here and there. That being said obviously all companies should should fall under the same rules or laws, if companies can take huge short cuts that end up harming people there is something really wrong with the regulations and the company is clearly at fault. I think you have the right idea, I don't see why the government couldn't force private companies to abide by infrastructure plans similar to the ones public companies use or come up with ? do public companies take longer because there is more oversight?"
},
{
"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": "331100",
"title": "",
"text": "Because the HFT bought them in response to the guy buying. The HFT was only able to get them faster because his server and internet connection were faster. That in combination with the fact that they intentionally just spray the exchange with a huge combination of buys. If they don't have anyone on the hook, they just cancel. So the HFT sends the exchange a bunch of buy orders. They know 99.9 won't match up with a guy who's looking to buy and cancel them. However, when they get a guy on the hook they let that one go through and don't cancel it. A traditional market maker doesn't do that. They let all the orders go through and charge a higher price when someone wants it. However, this is accepted as fair because they're providing volume. They're making sure that buyers and sellers will have an active market. So it's expect that they should be able to profit for having that convenience. When a HFT can cancel their orders at will they're not providing volume. It's not uncommon for a market maker to buy as many shares as possible and then force you to pay more for it. However, they give people the ability to buy or sell shares. HFT don't do this. They are fast enough to cancel buy orders unless they have a buyer on the hook. As a result they can be a market maker without any losses. That would be one thing, but they don't provide the market with liquidity. They just dump the shares as soon as they're done taking their haircut (tax)."
},
{
"docid": "385881",
"title": "",
"text": "It's clearly a risk, but is it any different than investing in your own business? Yes, it is different. If you own a business, you determine the path of the business. You determine how much risk the business takes. You can put in extra effort to try to make the business work. You can choose to liquidate to preserve your capital. If you invest without ownership, perhaps the founder retains a 50% plus one share stake, then whomever controls the business controls all those things. So you have all the risks of owning the business (in terms of things going wrong) without the control to make things go right. This makes investing in someone else's business inherently riskier. Another problem that can occur is that you could find out that the business is fraudulent. Or the business can become fraudulent. Neither of those are risks if you are the business owner. You won't defraud yourself. Angel investing, that is to say investing in someone else's startup, is inherently risky. This is why it is difficult to find investors, even though some startups go on to become fabulously wealthy (Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Most startups fail. They offer the possibility of great returns because it's really hard to determine which ones will fail and which will succeed. Otherwise the business would just take out the same loan that Jane's getting, and leave Jane out of it."
},
{
"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": "240781",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Removal of Net Neutrality is a vote for **double billing consumers!** Many consumers already overpay for their internet service (physical and wireless), and most people don't realize that websites also pay for internet access. That second fee is built into the site's business model (e.g., ad-supported, subscription, etc.) Sites could more effectively fight for Net Neutrality with a financial campaign like this... Subscription services could highlight the \"\"hidden\"\" cost of website internet access as a line item on their invoices. For example: * Netflix $5.50 * Verizon Access Fee $3.50 * Total Price $8.00 or * Netflix $5.75 * AT&T Access Fee $4.25 * Total Price $10.00 Of course, removing Net Neutrality means that Netflix would need to jack up it's prices for customers depending on who their ISP is (to meet whatever crazy quality of service fees the ISPs want to tack on) - and that seriously messes with Netflix's business. However, by using invoice line items, consumers, and their politicians would quickly realize that ISPs are double dipping. Maybe Netflix could simply threaten this reality? The more interesting problem is ad supported businesses like Google and Facebook. Any removal of Net Neutrality will lead to higher fees paid by advertisers, and most likely further annoyances to consumers with yet **more fucking ads** that try to pay for this insanity. Advertisers themselves are disgruntled with digital advertising, and it would be interesting if they too realized that ISPs were ultimately screwing them with quality of service fees. Can you imagine - some advertisers will pay more for that quality of service to force yet more ads on you! But the really scary part isn't Net Neutrality - it's the data rape that ISPs engage in to get those sweet sweet ad dollars. [Back in March, that debate came and went with a fizzle](http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html). Probably because Google and Facebook also need to data rape people to support their business models.\""
},
{
"docid": "394734",
"title": "",
"text": "Employees were already cashing out their RSUs and selling stock on private markets. >Even if Facebook could resist, an eager army of Facebook employees is pushing hard for an I.P.O., according to Eric Eldon of TechCrunch. In 2008, Facebook adopted a new restricted stock program that prevented employees from selling their shares until an I.P.O. or a sale, or if Facebook permitted it. They still could have stayed private if they really wanted to. They were compensating employees in stock, and those employees wanted to cash out. The underwriters wanted to cash out before the financials became open to public scrutiny."
}
] |
3801 | Can a bunch of wealthy people force Facebook to go public? | [
{
"docid": "307776",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Alex B's answer hits most of it, but leaves out one thing: most companies control who can own their non-public shares, and prohibit transfers, sales, or in some cases, even ongoing ownership by ex-employees. So it's not that hard to ensure you stay under 500 investors. Remember that Sharespost isn't an exchange or clearinghouse; it's basically a bulletin board with some light contract services and third-party escrow services. I'd guess that many of the companies on their \"\"hot\"\" list explicitly prohibit the sale of their non-public shares.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "391101",
"title": "",
"text": "> the claim that individuals will give up private ownership in exchange for order-up public vehicles It will be a combination of two things: * A clear advantage to doing so from an financial and practicality standpoing, and; * A regulatory mandate. It's hard to force people to do something that doesn't work and makes little financial sense; that's where the first tenet comes in. The second tenet comes in for those who simply refuse to go along. There will be people who privately own automated vehicles - just as there are people who own motorhomes or their own planes. However, there won't be any privately owned vehicles that are not automated that are allowed on public roads."
},
{
"docid": "455306",
"title": "",
"text": "You're totallllllllly right - companies on social are mostly trying to make dough, but fuck me they royally fuck it up. Less than 1% of anyone liking a business' page are going to see anything the company posts. Yet here we are in 2017 with SME's still buying Facebook likes inventory as ad objectives. The fuck? When you hook your PPC into analytics and you run your hotjar and then see who's buying, who's abandoning and WHY - then you have a potent force for remarketing and ultimately selling stuff successfully via social. But as you say, most companies still going for organic social traffic which jusssssst ain't going to happen. Pay to play. <shrugs> Good convo with you man - appreciate a good Reddit yarn like this."
},
{
"docid": "558623",
"title": "",
"text": "So labor force participation rate is at 62.9 and it's all time low is 62.4 2 years ago but I'm stretching? What are these stats you speak of? Im 26 and I know a bunch of people with college degrees who work and still live with their parents. Shits not exactly gravy if you get what what I'm saying."
},
{
"docid": "312619",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Would the net effect *really* be worse, though? If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means. Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives. As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public). A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse? As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite. There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back! The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as \"\"morally wrong\"\" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag. In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation. There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already. The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting.\""
},
{
"docid": "292893",
"title": "",
"text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ..."
},
{
"docid": "123956",
"title": "",
"text": "> Vouchers pay the private schools what the public school would have received in the first place. The public school doesn't pay as much in taxes, and has a government supported administration that cuts waste at every chance. So the private schools collect all the voucher money, figure out they can't turn a profit, and go bankrupt. Sending all the kids they had enrolled back to the public schools or forcing another issuance of another voucher. Costing the school system double to triple for every kid that gets screwed that way. Which means the public school system doesn't have that money in their budget either, forcing further cuts. I have never considered this before. I can see the issue with it. You've changed my view on vouchers being a good system. >Secondarily it also causes self segregation at the schools, because all the affluent parent can afford to drive their kids to another school, poor kids need a bus that's not covered by a voucher. So we end up with schools that are 90% black/hispanic with only 50% speaking english in a county that is 66% white. While around the corner is a 90% white school where only 5% speak spanish when over 25% of the population does. And that's just the racial demographics that are immediately obvious. The poverty levels are harder to get data on. I don't consider this is necessarily a bad thing though. If schools are self segregated, it allows for teachers to teach in a certain way that is better for their demographic. >Either school security officer Bob on a power trip, or the delinquent in the hall, the problem is the same. Fearing for safety when there really shouldn't be a problem. You don't get either of those at schools where there is almost no poverty. You will have the same problem in Canada if you move to a school district that has a significant amount of poverty. >And I get the feeling you don't live near a population center. I don't live in a big city, but I live in a suburban area."
},
{
"docid": "141541",
"title": "",
"text": "Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity. I don't read them or care to read them myself. If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense? Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end. After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off. Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered? Is it people actually putting in sell order manually? Is it something else? There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here."
},
{
"docid": "555851",
"title": "",
"text": "\">I fucking hate it when I see another rich kid acting like they came from slums Where did David Knopf claim he was from the slums? You got a source for that? >and worked their way up the ladder How do you know he didn't? Life is a bell curve. Some people climb the ladder much faster than others. Some people may climb because of nepotism. Some people genuinely are better than most other people. You think everyone should rise up at the same pace? Move to Japan. >delusional twats much like yourself believe that you can earn anything with just some \"\"hard work bruh.\"\" Not just hard work, but also talent. If everyone works the same amount, those who are more talented will *generally* have more success. Of course, some is subject to chance, some people have a head start, etc., but in general, that's the way that the world has proven to work. >About every successful silicon valley startup such as Microsoft, Facebook, and Snapchat were founded by kids with very prominent parents. Yeah, Microsoft. K. So Bill Gates grew up with upper middle class parents. Know what? So did a fucking *huge* amount of people. Know how many are as rich as Bill Gates? Fucking none of them. He had a head start, absolutely, but that doesn't take away his success. He's done more with what he was given than any of his peers, and likely more than anyone regardless of beginning income level could do. Zuckerberg's dad was a dentist. Upper middle class, but if you're *really* being honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are almost 200k dentists in the US alone, and yet there aren't 200k multi billionaires. Hm. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was the son of a professor who immigrated from Russia. Steve Jobs was the adopted child of two blue collar workers. Of course, if we move out of just Silicon Valley, your narrative really, *really* falls apart, since Silicon Valley of course has a little bit of a lean towards the wealthy, as computers aren't cheap and getting started in that arena requires the use of a computer. [Take a look at billionaires in general](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2010-12-06/twenty-billionaires-who-started-with-nothing). Most billionaires [did not inherit their wealth](https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/self-made/#7d08bb1941cb). And, something like a [third](https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/from-poor-to-rich-billionare-infographic.jpg) of the richest billionaires came from 'poor' parents, in addition to simply not inheriting their wealth. >whats the fucking difference between someone who inherits their money and someone who practically has a trust fund? A trust fund is a sort of an inheritance. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up? >Again he is not self made. He's just an extension of his parents achievements... Source? I saw that someone who shares the name Knopf is wealthy (posted in this thread), but are those actually his parents? Do you have proof of that? Or are you just guessing that since he's made it to an executive position and shares the name of someone wealthy, that those are his parents? Further, *if* those are his parents, how does wealth from publishing transferring into a job at a consumer staples company work? Why is your first assumption when you see someone successful that they had it handed to them? Why do you need to selectively choose a small subset of people (Silicon Valley startups) out of an already limited group (billionaires) to be able to even attempt to make your point?\""
},
{
"docid": "240781",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Removal of Net Neutrality is a vote for **double billing consumers!** Many consumers already overpay for their internet service (physical and wireless), and most people don't realize that websites also pay for internet access. That second fee is built into the site's business model (e.g., ad-supported, subscription, etc.) Sites could more effectively fight for Net Neutrality with a financial campaign like this... Subscription services could highlight the \"\"hidden\"\" cost of website internet access as a line item on their invoices. For example: * Netflix $5.50 * Verizon Access Fee $3.50 * Total Price $8.00 or * Netflix $5.75 * AT&T Access Fee $4.25 * Total Price $10.00 Of course, removing Net Neutrality means that Netflix would need to jack up it's prices for customers depending on who their ISP is (to meet whatever crazy quality of service fees the ISPs want to tack on) - and that seriously messes with Netflix's business. However, by using invoice line items, consumers, and their politicians would quickly realize that ISPs are double dipping. Maybe Netflix could simply threaten this reality? The more interesting problem is ad supported businesses like Google and Facebook. Any removal of Net Neutrality will lead to higher fees paid by advertisers, and most likely further annoyances to consumers with yet **more fucking ads** that try to pay for this insanity. Advertisers themselves are disgruntled with digital advertising, and it would be interesting if they too realized that ISPs were ultimately screwing them with quality of service fees. Can you imagine - some advertisers will pay more for that quality of service to force yet more ads on you! But the really scary part isn't Net Neutrality - it's the data rape that ISPs engage in to get those sweet sweet ad dollars. [Back in March, that debate came and went with a fizzle](http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html). Probably because Google and Facebook also need to data rape people to support their business models.\""
},
{
"docid": "358286",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \"\"fairness\"\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \"\"tax the rich\"\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\""
},
{
"docid": "400713",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I actually tend to disagree. This was one of the most watched IPOs in history. Facebook would have benefited greatly from a pop. People would have thought \"\"wow, they really can do no wrong\"\". Instead there are endless negative articles about how this is a horrible failure. Sure, financially savvy people look at this and think FB did a beautiful job. They maximized their take from the IPO. But the price of the bad press can't be accurately measured. The benefit in terms of publicity of being seen as a stock/company on the move UP is hard to measure too. Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price. The halo effect on their business of THAT reality seems to me to have had the potential to be significant. So I'm not so sure, in the long term, whether it would have made more sense for them to get less money up front and get a successful IPO rather than go for the max dollars and have a PR disaster. I think the way things turned out made FB go from an unstoppable juggernaut into a company that can fail just like any other.\""
},
{
"docid": "554262",
"title": "",
"text": "Even people who did think it was a good didn't really get screwed. If you are an investor who thinks Facebook is a good buy then fucking hold it. The company hasn't even released its first quarter of earnings yet. If the people who bought Facebook are right about it it will be worth it in five years. The fact is we cannot say whether or not that is going to happen right now. The only people who really got screwed are the ones who wanted to flip it. If you wanted to flip it you lost a lot of money, but the retail investors who figured that Facebook long-term was worth the money, didn't get screwed. They might be wrong and might lose all their money five years from now, but they didn't get screwed yet."
},
{
"docid": "252853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it is common for investors to make equity investments in technology companies pre-IPO. There are technology incubators like Y Combinator that exist to make \"\"angel\"\" investments, which are early-stage equity investments in private technology companies (these investments are sometimes in notes that are convertible to equity, but are very similar to a stock investment). Wealthy individuals can also make angel investments (e.g. Peter Thiel made a $500K investment in Facebook in 2004 for 10.2% of the company). Additionally, venture capital firms exist to make equity investments in private companies. In the US, you need to be an Accredited Investor to make private equity investments (income greater than $200K or net worth greater than $1 million), but you probably need a lot more money than the minimum and connections to get in on these deals in reality.\""
},
{
"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": "346924",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The S&P 500 index is maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices, a division of McGraw Hill Financial. Changes to the index are made periodically, as needed. For Facebook, you'll find it mentioned in this December 11, 2013 press release (PDF). Quote: New York, NY, December 11 , 2013 – S&P Dow Jones Indices will make the following changes to the S&P 100, S&P 500, MidCap 400 and S&P SmallCap 600 indices after the close of trading on Friday, December 20: You can find out more about the S&P 500 index eligibility criteria from the S&P U.S. Indices methodology document (PDF). See pages 5 and 6: Market Capitalization - [...] Liquidity - [...] Domicile - [...] Public Float - [...] Sector Classification - [...] Financial Viability - Usually measured as four consecutive quarters of positive as reported earnings. [...] Treatment of IPOs - Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index. Eligible Securities - [...] [...] Changes to the U.S. indices other than the TMIX are made as needed, with no annual or semi-annual reconstitution. [...] LabCorp may have a smaller market cap than Facebook, but Facebook didn't meet all of the eligibility criteria – for instance, see the above note about \"\"Treatment of IPOs\"\" – until recently. Note also that \"\"Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months\"\" implies somebody at S&P makes a decision as to the exact when. As such, I would say, no, there is no \"\"simple rule or formula\"\", just the methodology above as applied by the decision-makers at S&P.\""
},
{
"docid": "287325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\""
},
{
"docid": "335631",
"title": "",
"text": "Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up."
},
{
"docid": "204561",
"title": "",
"text": "[&#9733;&#9733;&#9733; Register to Vote &#9733;&#9733;&#9733;](https://www.alabamainteractive.org/sos/voter_registration/voterRegistrationWelcome.action) by Monday, November 27, 2017 General Election: December 12, 2017 [Find your polling place](https://myinfo.alabamavotes.gov/VoterView/PollingPlaceSearch.do) [**Doug Jones**](http://dougjonesforsenate.com/) is running to represent Alabama in the U.S. Senate. [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/dougjonessenate) | [Twitter](https://twitter.com/gdouglasjones) | [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/homepage-donate) Jones supports universal health care, public schools, living wages, protecting Medicare, equal pay for equal work, renewable energy, and LGBTQ equality. ^(I'm a bot and I'm learning. Let me know how I can do better. I'll add candidates who will represent working-class people instead of billionaire political donors.)"
},
{
"docid": "429346",
"title": "",
"text": "Flyer the shit out of my local area. Google adwords it up and boost a bunch of Facebook deals. Then convert a lot of it into prize support for my game store to work in tandem with my local events to draw in a different crowd."
}
] |
3822 | How to change a large quantity of U.S. dollars into Euros? | [
{
"docid": "305907",
"title": "",
"text": "To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "204892",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think this is \"\"curious\"\" at all. A large part of Bitcoin's value is based on speculation currently, and since it's both a global currency and a relatively small one, global changes can greatly affect it without having a huge impact on the US Dollar (e.g., the article mentions that much of Bitcoin's trade, and therefore its value, is coming from Japan right now). The symmetry you're looking for can also be deceiving when talking about currencies of dramatically different values. The US M2 money supply is worth over $13 trillion (measuring in US Dollars). The Bitcoin money supply is currently worth about $66 billion (also measuring in US Dollars). If Bitcoin spiked 10% and the change in value was completely symmetric with the US dollar, the US dollar would fall in value by only 0.05% (i.e. move $6.6 billion in market cap from the USD to Bitcoin). That's also greatly exaggerating the impact of changes in value of Bitcoin on the US Dollar since Bitcoin and the USD aren't the only currency pair in existence. Far from it, in fact. This is why you see, for example, the Venezuelan Bolivar tank against the US Dollar without feeling immensely more wealthy. People in the US also tend to price things in USD, including foreign currencies, because that's what they're used to doing as they're most familiar with the value of a dollar from everyday experience.\""
},
{
"docid": "440103",
"title": "",
"text": "A lot of smaller (and/or weaker) countries did not have much choice when Germany and France decided to rename the German Mark as the Euro, as most of their trade was already in Marks. It was even common for their population to have their savings in Marks. So the question was. Do we wish to have to use the Euro with or without a seat on the board? It was a no brainer for them at the time... The UK has a lot of trade with the USA and other countries outside of the Euro zone, so we are unlikely to have to join the Euro. So in the end it comes down to this point - if the British voters trust a UK government they elected more or less than an EEC government mostly elected by people in the other EEC countries. I don’t think the UK will be joining the Euro anytime soon, but everything can (and will) change with the passage of time. (After all the USA used to be part of the pound trading zone and please can you pay us all the back dated tax you stop paying after a little tea party!) Update: Given what has just happen to Grease and Spain and the Conservative Party has the most seats in the UK parliament, I don’t think the UK will not be joining the Euro for the next 5 years at least"
},
{
"docid": "172025",
"title": "",
"text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars."
},
{
"docid": "236581",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If mounting debt is such an issue, why do all the markets act as though the US is perfectly solvent? They don't. China, Russia and most emerging markets are selling U.S. treasuries faster and faster. They have started doing so a couple years ago and are doing so at a higher pace now. They sold record numbers of U.S. treasuries in June. Many countries are forging trade partnerships with each other to get away from U.S. debt and even the U.N. and IMF are calling for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency because it no longer deserves that status, largely due to increasing debt. By the way, the Fed is owning a larger and larger portion of U.S. debt these days. >Why is our interest rate so low, and why do investors around the world continue buying Treasury bonds? The federal reserve keeps rates low. Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html >The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.** >\"\"This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,\"\" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. >Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January. Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!\""
},
{
"docid": "445929",
"title": "",
"text": "It's not the concept of patents that is a failure. It's the application of them. The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress may grant exclusive production rights to authors and inventors **for a limited time**... in order to **promote science and art**. It was supposed to protect people who put a large investment of time and resources into developing something. It wasn't the *idea* that was supposed to be protected – it was the *investment* in developing the idea. That is not how intellectual property is used today. Companies have instructed politicians to change the laws so that they can use intellectual property rights to maximize profits and monopolize industries. There was never any problem with the concept of patents. The problem lies with government. As long as businesses are allowed to legally bribe politicians, the laws will be altered to favor those businesses."
},
{
"docid": "331813",
"title": "",
"text": "Once, back when I had a bank account, I tried to pay a large emergency dental bill with my debit card. It rejected it as it turned out the bill was less than a dollar over what I had in the account. I thought there was enough money so I tried again, 3 times. They charged me an overdraft for each attempt even though the debit never went through. This was without overdraft protection, as overdraft protection would have allowed the debit and charged me one overdraft. I don't know the details but federal regulations have changed how they do this. To me overdraft protection rejects any debit that attempts to overdraft my account and doesn't charge me with an overdraft that didn't actually occur as a result of the charge being rejected, but that's not how it works."
},
{
"docid": "262575",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Sorry... I'm a software engineer not an academic. From the way you have viewed things -- that everything can be measured by quantity -- you are in fact coming from an \"\"academic\"\" perspective (the same as the \"\"idiot manager\"\" MBA's). >My assumption is that you can measure things like average throughput on a checkout line, or number of widgets assembled on an assembly line (and possibly the defect rate of those widgets), or pounds of fries dumped in the trash because they got cold before being served relative to fries served. Is this not the case? No, it is not the case; certainly not as you seem to imagine it. A single fast food worker does not simply stand in front of the french fry vats making fries all day long, and the metric of the \"\"fries dumped in the trash because they got cold before being served relative to fries served\"\" is used in the management of the overall operation (how many fries to make and when); *but they are emphatically NOT used as a 'performance measure' for the general workers (how could they be, the worker does not decide how many fries to make, the 'system' and the shift manager makes those decisions.* Likewise with the \"\"number of widgets assembly on the assembly line\"\" -- again the defect rate is known (and typically only varies when something major has gone wrong with one of the machines/processes) -- seldom is the actual worker responsible for anything major as far as defects (people with QA responsibilities might be \"\"thumped\"\" for failing to catch a bad batch -- a signal that they are likely simply NOT doing their job at all, rather than the quality of work). But the actual quantities produced are a matter of scheduling & planning via MRP systems (aka or MRP II and ERP). So, as I said... your ignorance (which has then turned into arrogance) is showing. >In my field we measure things like the change in average time to launch, or the revenue impact of features, or the change in performance metrics, etc. LOL. The attempts to measure software engineering are among the \"\"most failed\"\" category of performance measurement. Everyone in management basically keeps repeating the same stupid mistakes that were already proven worthless in prior iterations. >They're all proxy measurements though. Poor performers are generally much easier to spot than high performers. Mediocre performers can generally get through things, but may not earn promotions etc. Don't kid yourself. Poor performers in terms of actual quality & quantity of code will often still be promoted for several \"\"political\"\" reasons; they are probably better at \"\"managing up\"\" than the better coders are (IOW, they suck up to the \"\"idiot manager MBA\"\" boss better, regurgitate the latest party line of buzzwords/phrases on a regular basis, are not seen as \"\"troublesome\"\" {adamant/insistent on quality or consistency} and are seen as \"\"team players\"\", etc.) About the only \"\"poor performers\"\" that will be easily spotted are those who are totally incompetent/unqualified -- and really, they are an indication of poor management in that they should never have been hired in the first place. And the true \"\"high performers\"\" in software are in fact fairly easy to spot -- provided you know what to look for (and don't get caught up in ridiculously inane and worthless proxy performance metrics -- which are all too often \"\"how well/often did you kiss the boss's arse/comply with some meaningless process steps\"\").\""
},
{
"docid": "231521",
"title": "",
"text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro."
},
{
"docid": "229026",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\""
},
{
"docid": "296354",
"title": "",
"text": "We've all seen Reddit do some amazing things. Is there a place that this can be cross-posted to? (I'm new, and using my phone). Somewhere that will get a little more front page attention than r/business I'm thinking get Florida residents to know about this. Reddit has changed the votes of politicians, changed the minds of large companies (go daddy), and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for pet causes out of sympathy. Surely we can help these folks. How hard can it be to get a small insurance company to lose its reputation and more importantly, a vast majority of its customers. If you didn't read the whole article, read it. If you're not pissed, I'd be surprised. Let's do it for what's right, for the little guy, for books > insurance companies. Help this family maintain what's theirs. Upvote, x-post, share, and stop this injustice. Nothing is impossible."
},
{
"docid": "125847",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Are you nuts?** >*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\""
},
{
"docid": "246586",
"title": "",
"text": "Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here."
},
{
"docid": "136860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "42441",
"title": "",
"text": "Actually, total return is the most important which isn't necessarily just price change as this doesn't account for dividends that may be re-invested. Thus, the price change isn't necessarily that useful in terms of knowing what you end up with as an ending balance for an investment. Secondly, the price change itself may be deceptively large as if the stock initial price was low, e.g. a few dollars or less adjusting for stock splits as most big companies will split the stock once the price is high enough, then the percentages can be quite large years later. Something else to consider is the percentage change would be based on what as the initial base. The price at the start of the chart or something else? Carefully consider what you want the initial starting point to be in determining price shifts here as one could take either end and claim a rationale for using it. Most people want to look at the price to get an idea of what would X shares cost to purchase rather than look at the percentage change from day to day."
},
{
"docid": "540011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\""
},
{
"docid": "424998",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, my economics professor would kill me if I didn't point out that lowering the price doesn't change **demand,** only **quantity demanded.** There's a pretty big difference between the two. Anyway, the answer to your question is...it depends. You're hoping that people who don't buy your sandwich for the original price will start buying it at the lower price. You're also hoping that once you increase the price they'll continue to buy it. The relationship describing how much a change in price affects the quantity demanded is known as elasticity. Elastic demand means that small changes will have a big affect on buying decisions. Inelastic demand means that buyers are not very flexible and will continue to purchase even after a significant price increase. Theoretically, at least. The decision to raise or lower a price is a very complex process with a lot of variables, so I don't think anyone can give you a \"\"right answer\"\" to your question. Practically, you need to figure out where these extra customers are coming from. If they aren't buying your sandwiches now because there's a cheaper alternative, lowering the price might entice them to buy from you instead. However, this means that when you raise the price back, they'll likely leave again. If they don't know about your deli or haven't tried your sandwiches yet, a change in price isn't likely to do any good without a strong marketing campaign to back it up. The uniqueness of your product could also have an effect. If your product is subway quality at higher prices, no one is going to stick around. On the other hand, if you lace your sandwiches with crack, you might get some repeat customers. Long-term loyalty is key ;) Hopefully this rambling helps you. It's late and I need to sleep. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "65663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\""
},
{
"docid": "219940",
"title": "",
"text": "All this speculation and no one really has the right idea what's going on. It has almost nothing to do with VAT and nothing to do compliance. [It has everything to do with a very a chronically weak Euro.](https://www.google.com/finance?client=safari&rls=en&q=eur&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we) Apps in the App Store are tied to tiers. My app sells at tier 10. For USD, this means I sell my app for $10 and make $7 after their cut. Tier 10 used to translate to 7,99€. Now it's 8,99€. This means before the hike I, as an American, would get 4,79€ or $6.19 after the exchange. This wasn't a problem back when the app store opened. The economy was relatively strong and the Euro stood around 1.5 to one American dollar. This means in 2008 I'd get about the same $7 after the conversion. With the Euro crisis, the tiers remained the same which meant each European sale only netted around $5.75, a $1.25 discount for each European. The Euro conversion was a long standing issue and the price hike restores the exchange back to the $7 dollars it used to be."
},
{
"docid": "579512",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bunky1787.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/jim-rickards-free-trade-a-barbarous-relic/) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > What Rickards ignores is that as these dollars were being accumulated abroad(voluntarily as countries attempted to increase their reserve balances), the attempt to prevent the fall of the dollar&#039;s value by the U.S. government through foreign investment disincentives, restrictions on foreign lending, efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars, and cooperation with other countries did not succeed(in addition to foreign trade restrictions). > On the contrary, the depreciation of the Yuan improves the purchasing power of U.S. citizens in terms of Chinese imports and has little correlation with U.S. consumer prices. > A foreigner needs dollars to purchase U.S. goods, and if exporters cannot acquire as many dollars from sales to the U.S., then they will be unable to effectively demand our goods and services in return. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f5k71/jim_rickards_free_trade_a_barbarous_relica/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135950 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S**^#1 **price**^#2 **dollar**^#3 **Rickards**^#4 **foreign**^#5\""
}
] |
3822 | How to change a large quantity of U.S. dollars into Euros? | [
{
"docid": "385090",
"title": "",
"text": "The right answer to this question really depends on the size of the transfer. For larger transfers ($10k and up) the exchange rate is the dominant factor, and you will get the best rates from Interactive Brokers (IB) as noted by Paul above, or OANDA (listed by user6714). Under $10k, CurrencyFair is probably your best bet; while the rates are not quite as good as IB or OANDA, they are much better than the banks, and the transaction fees are less. If you don't need to exchange the currency immediately, you can put in your own bids and potentially get better rates from other CurrencyFair users. Below $1000, XE Trade (also listed by user6714) has exchange rates that are almost as good, but also offers EFT transfers in and out, which will save you wire transfer fees from your bank to send or receive money to/from your currency broker. The bank wire transfer fees in the US can be $10-$30 (outgoing wires on the higher end) so for smaller transfers this is a significant consideration you need to look into; if you are receiving money in US, ING Direct and many brokerage accounts don't charge for incoming wires - but unless you have a commercial bank account with high balances, expect to spend $10-$20 minimum for outgoing. European wire transfer fees are minimal or zero in most cases, making CurrencyFair more appealing if the money stays in Europe. Below $100, it's rarely worth the effort to use any of the above services; use PayPal or MoneyBookers, whatever is easiest. Update: As of December 2013, CurrencyFair is temporarily suspending operations for US residents: Following our initial assessment of regulatory changes in the United States, including changes arising from the Dodd-Frank Act, CurrencyFair will temporarily withdraw services for US residents while we consider these requirements and how they impact our business model. This was a difficult and very regretful decision but we are confident we will be able to resume services in the future. The exact date of re-activation has not yet been determined and may take some time. We appreciate your patience and will continue communicating our status and expected return."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "579512",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bunky1787.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/jim-rickards-free-trade-a-barbarous-relic/) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > What Rickards ignores is that as these dollars were being accumulated abroad(voluntarily as countries attempted to increase their reserve balances), the attempt to prevent the fall of the dollar&#039;s value by the U.S. government through foreign investment disincentives, restrictions on foreign lending, efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars, and cooperation with other countries did not succeed(in addition to foreign trade restrictions). > On the contrary, the depreciation of the Yuan improves the purchasing power of U.S. citizens in terms of Chinese imports and has little correlation with U.S. consumer prices. > A foreigner needs dollars to purchase U.S. goods, and if exporters cannot acquire as many dollars from sales to the U.S., then they will be unable to effectively demand our goods and services in return. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f5k71/jim_rickards_free_trade_a_barbarous_relica/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135950 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S**^#1 **price**^#2 **dollar**^#3 **Rickards**^#4 **foreign**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "194730",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid."
},
{
"docid": "371672",
"title": "",
"text": "The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)"
},
{
"docid": "540451",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\""
},
{
"docid": "292714",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option."
},
{
"docid": "355315",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Limited Price is probably equivalent to the current par value of a \"\"limit order\"\". Markets move fast, and if the commodity is seeing some volatility in the buy and sell prices, if you place an ordinary buy order you may not get the price you were quoted. A \"\"limit order\"\" tells your broker or whomever or whatever is making the order on your behalf that you will pay no more than X yuan. While the market is below that price, the trader will attempt to get you the quantity you want, but if they can't get you your full order for an average price less than the limit, the whole thing is rolled back. You can set a limit at any price, but a limit order of 1 yuan for a pound of sterling silver will likely never be executed as long as the market itself is functioning. So, you are being provided with a \"\"par value\"\" that they can guarantee will be executed in the current market. Entrustment prices are probably prices offered to the managers of trust funds. A trust is simply a set of securities and/or cash which is placed under the nominal control of a third party, who then must in good faith attempt to fulfill the goals of the actual owner of the securities with regards to growth or retention of value. Trustees almost never speculate with the money they control, but when they do move money it's often a sizeble chunk (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars instead of a few thousand dollars here and there). So, in return for the long-term holdings, large buys and sells, and thus the reduced cost of maintaining a business relationship with the broker, the broker may offer better prices to trust fund managers.\""
},
{
"docid": "440103",
"title": "",
"text": "A lot of smaller (and/or weaker) countries did not have much choice when Germany and France decided to rename the German Mark as the Euro, as most of their trade was already in Marks. It was even common for their population to have their savings in Marks. So the question was. Do we wish to have to use the Euro with or without a seat on the board? It was a no brainer for them at the time... The UK has a lot of trade with the USA and other countries outside of the Euro zone, so we are unlikely to have to join the Euro. So in the end it comes down to this point - if the British voters trust a UK government they elected more or less than an EEC government mostly elected by people in the other EEC countries. I don’t think the UK will be joining the Euro anytime soon, but everything can (and will) change with the passage of time. (After all the USA used to be part of the pound trading zone and please can you pay us all the back dated tax you stop paying after a little tea party!) Update: Given what has just happen to Grease and Spain and the Conservative Party has the most seats in the UK parliament, I don’t think the UK will not be joining the Euro for the next 5 years at least"
},
{
"docid": "538898",
"title": "",
"text": "The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate. The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions. This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar. With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive. Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both. Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar. Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation. Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand. Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere. This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds. Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income. All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future. Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates."
},
{
"docid": "236581",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If mounting debt is such an issue, why do all the markets act as though the US is perfectly solvent? They don't. China, Russia and most emerging markets are selling U.S. treasuries faster and faster. They have started doing so a couple years ago and are doing so at a higher pace now. They sold record numbers of U.S. treasuries in June. Many countries are forging trade partnerships with each other to get away from U.S. debt and even the U.N. and IMF are calling for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency because it no longer deserves that status, largely due to increasing debt. By the way, the Fed is owning a larger and larger portion of U.S. debt these days. >Why is our interest rate so low, and why do investors around the world continue buying Treasury bonds? The federal reserve keeps rates low. Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html >The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.** >\"\"This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,\"\" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. >Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January. Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!\""
},
{
"docid": "390524",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A lot (sometimes called a round lot) always refers to the quantity of physical good that you're getting, like a carton of eggs or a barrel of oil. The tricky thing in the case of forex is that the physical good also happens to be a currency. A spot currency product trades in the denomination on the right-hand side (RHS) of the product name. So if you're buying EUR/USD you are paying USD currency to get EUR \"\"units\"\", and if you're selling EUR/USD you are receiving USD by giving away EUR \"\"units\"\". The EUR is the \"\"physical good\"\" in this case. The way I remember it is to think of all products (not just currencies) as trading pairs. So AAPL in my mind is AAPL/USD. When I buy AAPL/USD I am paying USD to get AAPL units. When I sell AAPL/USD I am receiving USD by giving away AAPL units. The thing on the left is the physical good (even if it happens to be money) that you are exchanging, and the thing on the right is the money that you are exchanging. So, when I buy a lot of AAPL, I am buying 100 shares at their current price in dollars. Similarly, when I buy a lot of EUR/USD, I am buying 100K Euros at their current price in dollars.\""
},
{
"docid": "219940",
"title": "",
"text": "All this speculation and no one really has the right idea what's going on. It has almost nothing to do with VAT and nothing to do compliance. [It has everything to do with a very a chronically weak Euro.](https://www.google.com/finance?client=safari&rls=en&q=eur&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we) Apps in the App Store are tied to tiers. My app sells at tier 10. For USD, this means I sell my app for $10 and make $7 after their cut. Tier 10 used to translate to 7,99€. Now it's 8,99€. This means before the hike I, as an American, would get 4,79€ or $6.19 after the exchange. This wasn't a problem back when the app store opened. The economy was relatively strong and the Euro stood around 1.5 to one American dollar. This means in 2008 I'd get about the same $7 after the conversion. With the Euro crisis, the tiers remained the same which meant each European sale only netted around $5.75, a $1.25 discount for each European. The Euro conversion was a long standing issue and the price hike restores the exchange back to the $7 dollars it used to be."
},
{
"docid": "136860",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "294855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\""
},
{
"docid": "231521",
"title": "",
"text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro."
},
{
"docid": "92120",
"title": "",
"text": "Fair point, but I'd submit to you that the European system has demonstrated its flaws. You claim it is better than the U.S. system, which in terms of ease, quality or value, is probably the case. But, the unsustainable costs in the Eurozone are driven by healthcare and entitlement programs, similar to the U.S. and other developed nations. What happens when Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal are forced to default or leave the Euro? Do you think the healthcare quality, ease and value will remain as it has been?"
},
{
"docid": "471277",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/exclusionary-zoning-is-opportunity-hoarding-by-upper-middle-class/amp/) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Exclusionary zoning is bad for the economy: Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh estimate that the U.S. economy would be 10 percent bigger if three cities had the zoning regulations of the median American city. > &quot;With exclusionary zoning in place, the purchase of a large quantity of housing is effectively bundled with the opportunity to live in a&quot;good&quot; neighborhood and to send one&#039;s children to the best public schools. > Exclusionary zoning is a form of &quot;Opportunity hoarding&quot; by the upper middle class, a market distortion restricting access to a scarce good, that restricts opportunities to other children. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejczl/exclusionary_zoning_is_opportunity_hoarding_by/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133553 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **zoning**^#1 **schools**^#2 **Exclusionary**^#3 **City**^#4 **land**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "87057",
"title": "",
"text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones."
},
{
"docid": "137353",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between 13% and 15%. Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican peso. Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments, the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency. For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)? The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, \"\"does the real value of my stock ownership go down\"\" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much \"\"it depends\"\" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this. The best answer is to say, \"\"Look at history and what happened\"\" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics.\""
},
{
"docid": "424998",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, my economics professor would kill me if I didn't point out that lowering the price doesn't change **demand,** only **quantity demanded.** There's a pretty big difference between the two. Anyway, the answer to your question is...it depends. You're hoping that people who don't buy your sandwich for the original price will start buying it at the lower price. You're also hoping that once you increase the price they'll continue to buy it. The relationship describing how much a change in price affects the quantity demanded is known as elasticity. Elastic demand means that small changes will have a big affect on buying decisions. Inelastic demand means that buyers are not very flexible and will continue to purchase even after a significant price increase. Theoretically, at least. The decision to raise or lower a price is a very complex process with a lot of variables, so I don't think anyone can give you a \"\"right answer\"\" to your question. Practically, you need to figure out where these extra customers are coming from. If they aren't buying your sandwiches now because there's a cheaper alternative, lowering the price might entice them to buy from you instead. However, this means that when you raise the price back, they'll likely leave again. If they don't know about your deli or haven't tried your sandwiches yet, a change in price isn't likely to do any good without a strong marketing campaign to back it up. The uniqueness of your product could also have an effect. If your product is subway quality at higher prices, no one is going to stick around. On the other hand, if you lace your sandwiches with crack, you might get some repeat customers. Long-term loyalty is key ;) Hopefully this rambling helps you. It's late and I need to sleep. Good luck!\""
}
] |
3822 | How to change a large quantity of U.S. dollars into Euros? | [
{
"docid": "418900",
"title": "",
"text": "Be careful of transferring through the large banks. They may say no/low fees, but they hide their cut in the spread, or worsen the exchange rate, to their favor. Try: - http://fxglobaltransfer.oanda.com/"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "378587",
"title": "",
"text": "History... No company has maintained such a high market cap over an extended amount of time. Not only that, but is Apple worth a trillion dollars? In a generation will their products be as popular? They're worth significantly more than Exxon Mobil at this point... If Apple's market cap does go to a trillion dollars its an upside of 60 percent or so. Or I can invest in a company like Lenovo whose market cap is 11 billion and is expanding like crazy. If their valuation goes up even to the 50 billion mark, that's an upside of nearly 400 percent. Plus there's the whole supply/demand dynamic for a stock that is already widely owned, how much more money can new investors put into it? When will all the funds who hold massive quantities sell? Etc... There are many reasons why no company has maintained a trillion dollar valuation.... Honestly it shocks me that people who frequent a finance message board don't understand these things."
},
{
"docid": "540011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\""
},
{
"docid": "262575",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Sorry... I'm a software engineer not an academic. From the way you have viewed things -- that everything can be measured by quantity -- you are in fact coming from an \"\"academic\"\" perspective (the same as the \"\"idiot manager\"\" MBA's). >My assumption is that you can measure things like average throughput on a checkout line, or number of widgets assembled on an assembly line (and possibly the defect rate of those widgets), or pounds of fries dumped in the trash because they got cold before being served relative to fries served. Is this not the case? No, it is not the case; certainly not as you seem to imagine it. A single fast food worker does not simply stand in front of the french fry vats making fries all day long, and the metric of the \"\"fries dumped in the trash because they got cold before being served relative to fries served\"\" is used in the management of the overall operation (how many fries to make and when); *but they are emphatically NOT used as a 'performance measure' for the general workers (how could they be, the worker does not decide how many fries to make, the 'system' and the shift manager makes those decisions.* Likewise with the \"\"number of widgets assembly on the assembly line\"\" -- again the defect rate is known (and typically only varies when something major has gone wrong with one of the machines/processes) -- seldom is the actual worker responsible for anything major as far as defects (people with QA responsibilities might be \"\"thumped\"\" for failing to catch a bad batch -- a signal that they are likely simply NOT doing their job at all, rather than the quality of work). But the actual quantities produced are a matter of scheduling & planning via MRP systems (aka or MRP II and ERP). So, as I said... your ignorance (which has then turned into arrogance) is showing. >In my field we measure things like the change in average time to launch, or the revenue impact of features, or the change in performance metrics, etc. LOL. The attempts to measure software engineering are among the \"\"most failed\"\" category of performance measurement. Everyone in management basically keeps repeating the same stupid mistakes that were already proven worthless in prior iterations. >They're all proxy measurements though. Poor performers are generally much easier to spot than high performers. Mediocre performers can generally get through things, but may not earn promotions etc. Don't kid yourself. Poor performers in terms of actual quality & quantity of code will often still be promoted for several \"\"political\"\" reasons; they are probably better at \"\"managing up\"\" than the better coders are (IOW, they suck up to the \"\"idiot manager MBA\"\" boss better, regurgitate the latest party line of buzzwords/phrases on a regular basis, are not seen as \"\"troublesome\"\" {adamant/insistent on quality or consistency} and are seen as \"\"team players\"\", etc.) About the only \"\"poor performers\"\" that will be easily spotted are those who are totally incompetent/unqualified -- and really, they are an indication of poor management in that they should never have been hired in the first place. And the true \"\"high performers\"\" in software are in fact fairly easy to spot -- provided you know what to look for (and don't get caught up in ridiculously inane and worthless proxy performance metrics -- which are all too often \"\"how well/often did you kiss the boss's arse/comply with some meaningless process steps\"\").\""
},
{
"docid": "471277",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/exclusionary-zoning-is-opportunity-hoarding-by-upper-middle-class/amp/) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Exclusionary zoning is bad for the economy: Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh estimate that the U.S. economy would be 10 percent bigger if three cities had the zoning regulations of the median American city. > &quot;With exclusionary zoning in place, the purchase of a large quantity of housing is effectively bundled with the opportunity to live in a&quot;good&quot; neighborhood and to send one&#039;s children to the best public schools. > Exclusionary zoning is a form of &quot;Opportunity hoarding&quot; by the upper middle class, a market distortion restricting access to a scarce good, that restricts opportunities to other children. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejczl/exclusionary_zoning_is_opportunity_hoarding_by/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133553 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **zoning**^#1 **schools**^#2 **Exclusionary**^#3 **City**^#4 **land**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "504423",
"title": "",
"text": "let's define inflation as an increase in m1 relative to the goods and services in the dollar economy. twist doesn't change m1 because it is sterilized. it does make tsys attractive since it supports their prices. that means de-risking flows are to the u.s. that means dollar goes up. that means gold goes down."
},
{
"docid": "196375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/07/heres-the-real-reason-republicans-dont-give-a-damn-about-climate-change/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Of the impacts studied, increased mortality will be the greatest direct economic cost from climate change, accounting for about two-thirds of the costs seen by the end of the century according to the study and using mortality values consistent with current U.S. government practices. > Amir and others working in the intersection of climate change and the economy have started a group called the Climate Impact Lab. > While the study paints one of the most detailed pictures of the winners and losers from the impacts of climate change in the U.S., Rasmussen cautioned that it&#039;s far from complete, and that many other impacts still need to be studied. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l3opk/the_economic_consequence_of_climate_change_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~158531 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Climate**^#1 **change**^#2 **study**^#3 **cost**^#4 **how**^#5\""
},
{
"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": "65663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\""
},
{
"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": "273387",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\""
},
{
"docid": "196596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The benefit of having gold to trade is that there is almost always someone that will take gold when the fiat currency is in trouble. The potential downfall of doing this is that when people think the fiat currency is in trouble, they tend to buy up gold, thus driving up the price. This means that you get less gold for each hour of work you perform (deer-haunch, basket of apples, etc.). Even more, if the financial crisis is limited to only one fiat currency, you have a situation where that fiat currency devalues but others can gain in value as people try to sell their old currency for the new standard currency. If people also sell their gold to buy up this currency, that lowers the price of gold in that currency. For example, let us assume that gold was 1000 dollars an ounce and 1000 euros an ounce. Suddenly, people start thinking that the euro is in trouble, so they start buying gold. The law of supply and demand kicks in (more buyers, same supply, so higher prices) and gold is suddenly worth 2000 dollars and 2000 euros an ounce. If you start buying at this point, you get half as much gold as the person who bought in the beginning. Suddenly, the euro collapses. Stores that used to take euros start demanding dollars. Suddenly, it costs 20,000 euros for an ounce of gold but an ounce of gold will only get you 1,000 dollars since everyone is selling their gold to get dollars. The people who buy gold in the \"\"panic\"\" end up losing half the value of their money if not more. The \"\"speculators\"\" that bought gold at $1,000, sold it at $2,000, and bought it back at $1,000 now have all their gold back plus the $1,000 the other people lost.\""
},
{
"docid": "475478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\""
},
{
"docid": "319729",
"title": "",
"text": "These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine."
},
{
"docid": "294855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\""
},
{
"docid": "172025",
"title": "",
"text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars."
},
{
"docid": "498163",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read an account of why the U.K. didn't end up with the euro as its currency in David M. Smick's great book The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy. Chapter 6 of the book is titled \"\"Nothing Stays the Same: The 1992 Sterling Crisis.\"\" Here's a very brief excerpt; emphasis mine: [...] As this story shows, such blindness to the realities of a changing world can be very dangerous. In this case, the result was the brutal collapse of the British pound, which explains why the British people still use their own currency, the pound or sterling, and not the euro. The events that unfolded in the autumn of 1992 were totally unforeseen, yet they reshaped the European monetary world and represent a phenomenon that continues to impact global economies. [...] Smick's account of the events around 1992 runs about 28 pages. Here's my version, in a nutshell: At the time, Britain was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM. The belief in Europe was that by uniting currencies under a common mechanism, Europe could gain influence in international financial policy largely dominated by the United States. The ERM was a precursor to monetary union. The Maastricht Treaty would eventually create the European Union and the euro. Britain joined the ERM later than other nations, in 1990, and after some controversy. Being part of the ERM required member nations to agree to expand and contract their currencies only within certain agreed upon limits called currency bands. Due to the way this had been structured, Germany's strong position placed it at the top of the system. At some point in 1992, Germany had raised interest rates to curb future inflation. However, Britain wanted Germany to cut rates – Britain was not in as enviable a position, economically speaking, and its currency was under pressure. The currency band system would put Britain in a tighter spot with Germany raising rates. Enter George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire, a.k.a. \"\"the man who broke the Bank of England.\"\" Soros took a huge short position against the Sterling. He believed the Sterling was overvalued relative to the German deutsche mark, and Britain would be forced to devalue its currency and realign with respect to the ERM. Other traders followed and also sold the Sterling short. With much pressure on the currency, the Bank of England had to buy up Sterling in order to maintain its agreement under the ERM. Of course, they needed to borrow other currencies to do this. Soon the BoE was in over its head defending the Sterling, realizing the exchange rate it needed to maintain under the ERM simply wasn't sustainable. Britain was forced to withdraw from the ERM on Black Wednesday, September 16th, 1992. And so, Britain does not use the euro today – and any talk of doing so is politically controversial. Therefore I wouldn't bet on Britain adopting the euro any time soon – too many of the players are still in politics and remember 1992 well. I think if Britain adopting the euro is ever to happen, it will be when the memory of 1992 has faded away. BTW, George Soros made off with more than US$1 billion. Soros is a very smart guy.\""
},
{
"docid": "281862",
"title": "",
"text": "Shops in most touristic places tend to accept major currencies (at least dollar and euro). I remember a trip in Istanbul before the euro existed, the kids selling postcards near the blue mosque were able to guess your country and announce in your language the price in your currency."
},
{
"docid": "245727",
"title": "",
"text": "Calculate the theoretical forward price using covered interest parity, then compare it to the actual forward price of $1.04/euro. Buy the cheap one and sell the expensive one (this will involve borrowing dollars or euros at the US or Euro interest rate to buy the other currency and longing or shorting the 6-month forward to perfectly hedge your currency exposure)."
},
{
"docid": "321579",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\""
}
] |
3822 | How to change a large quantity of U.S. dollars into Euros? | [
{
"docid": "308837",
"title": "",
"text": "You would probably be better off wiring the money from your US account to your French account. That IMHO is the cheapest and safest way. It doesn't matter much which bank to use, as it will go through the same route of SWIFT transfer, just choose the banks with the lowest fees on both sides, shop around a little."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "136073",
"title": "",
"text": "If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation."
},
{
"docid": "137919",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Amount is the closest single word. \"\"Amount in dollars\"\" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting. \"\"Amount and currency\"\" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies. An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon. Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included. If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement. Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money. For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency. 100 dollars, or 100 Euro. There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars. So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to \"\"List the amount and currency.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "68462",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\""
},
{
"docid": "296354",
"title": "",
"text": "We've all seen Reddit do some amazing things. Is there a place that this can be cross-posted to? (I'm new, and using my phone). Somewhere that will get a little more front page attention than r/business I'm thinking get Florida residents to know about this. Reddit has changed the votes of politicians, changed the minds of large companies (go daddy), and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for pet causes out of sympathy. Surely we can help these folks. How hard can it be to get a small insurance company to lose its reputation and more importantly, a vast majority of its customers. If you didn't read the whole article, read it. If you're not pissed, I'd be surprised. Let's do it for what's right, for the little guy, for books > insurance companies. Help this family maintain what's theirs. Upvote, x-post, share, and stop this injustice. Nothing is impossible."
},
{
"docid": "25582",
"title": "",
"text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash."
},
{
"docid": "579512",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bunky1787.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/jim-rickards-free-trade-a-barbarous-relic/) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > What Rickards ignores is that as these dollars were being accumulated abroad(voluntarily as countries attempted to increase their reserve balances), the attempt to prevent the fall of the dollar&#039;s value by the U.S. government through foreign investment disincentives, restrictions on foreign lending, efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars, and cooperation with other countries did not succeed(in addition to foreign trade restrictions). > On the contrary, the depreciation of the Yuan improves the purchasing power of U.S. citizens in terms of Chinese imports and has little correlation with U.S. consumer prices. > A foreigner needs dollars to purchase U.S. goods, and if exporters cannot acquire as many dollars from sales to the U.S., then they will be unable to effectively demand our goods and services in return. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f5k71/jim_rickards_free_trade_a_barbarous_relica/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135950 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S**^#1 **price**^#2 **dollar**^#3 **Rickards**^#4 **foreign**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "239379",
"title": "",
"text": "\">When asked what it could mean for the dollar should the oil market move oil trade out of the U.S. currency and into the yuan, Weinberg said the world's transaction currency would suffer \"\"lesser demand for U.S. securities across the board.\"\" >\"\"Moving oil trade out of dollars into yuan will take right now between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar… The key part\""
},
{
"docid": "319729",
"title": "",
"text": "These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine."
},
{
"docid": "559927",
"title": "",
"text": "If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value."
},
{
"docid": "281862",
"title": "",
"text": "Shops in most touristic places tend to accept major currencies (at least dollar and euro). I remember a trip in Istanbul before the euro existed, the kids selling postcards near the blue mosque were able to guess your country and announce in your language the price in your currency."
},
{
"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": "196375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/07/heres-the-real-reason-republicans-dont-give-a-damn-about-climate-change/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Of the impacts studied, increased mortality will be the greatest direct economic cost from climate change, accounting for about two-thirds of the costs seen by the end of the century according to the study and using mortality values consistent with current U.S. government practices. > Amir and others working in the intersection of climate change and the economy have started a group called the Climate Impact Lab. > While the study paints one of the most detailed pictures of the winners and losers from the impacts of climate change in the U.S., Rasmussen cautioned that it&#039;s far from complete, and that many other impacts still need to be studied. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l3opk/the_economic_consequence_of_climate_change_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~158531 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Climate**^#1 **change**^#2 **study**^#3 **cost**^#4 **how**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "273387",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\""
},
{
"docid": "125847",
"title": "",
"text": "\"**Are you nuts?** >*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\""
},
{
"docid": "591068",
"title": "",
"text": "Oil itself is actually quite nice because you can store it in large quantities cheaply, but it costs a lot to move it and get it out of the ground. Another factor which you pointed out is how you can only get an engine 50% energy efficient, whereas electric motors are far more efficient. The main problem with renewables is that it is hard to store in large quantities, since our batteries aren't that efficient at storing a lot of energy for nighttime/calm days. Nuclear power and a really efficient battery would solve all of our problems, but people are deathly afraid of nuclear. The main point is that people have been predicting the end of oil for decades, just a matter of time until it's economically viable to stop using it."
},
{
"docid": "355315",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Limited Price is probably equivalent to the current par value of a \"\"limit order\"\". Markets move fast, and if the commodity is seeing some volatility in the buy and sell prices, if you place an ordinary buy order you may not get the price you were quoted. A \"\"limit order\"\" tells your broker or whomever or whatever is making the order on your behalf that you will pay no more than X yuan. While the market is below that price, the trader will attempt to get you the quantity you want, but if they can't get you your full order for an average price less than the limit, the whole thing is rolled back. You can set a limit at any price, but a limit order of 1 yuan for a pound of sterling silver will likely never be executed as long as the market itself is functioning. So, you are being provided with a \"\"par value\"\" that they can guarantee will be executed in the current market. Entrustment prices are probably prices offered to the managers of trust funds. A trust is simply a set of securities and/or cash which is placed under the nominal control of a third party, who then must in good faith attempt to fulfill the goals of the actual owner of the securities with regards to growth or retention of value. Trustees almost never speculate with the money they control, but when they do move money it's often a sizeble chunk (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars instead of a few thousand dollars here and there). So, in return for the long-term holdings, large buys and sells, and thus the reduced cost of maintaining a business relationship with the broker, the broker may offer better prices to trust fund managers.\""
},
{
"docid": "219940",
"title": "",
"text": "All this speculation and no one really has the right idea what's going on. It has almost nothing to do with VAT and nothing to do compliance. [It has everything to do with a very a chronically weak Euro.](https://www.google.com/finance?client=safari&rls=en&q=eur&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we) Apps in the App Store are tied to tiers. My app sells at tier 10. For USD, this means I sell my app for $10 and make $7 after their cut. Tier 10 used to translate to 7,99€. Now it's 8,99€. This means before the hike I, as an American, would get 4,79€ or $6.19 after the exchange. This wasn't a problem back when the app store opened. The economy was relatively strong and the Euro stood around 1.5 to one American dollar. This means in 2008 I'd get about the same $7 after the conversion. With the Euro crisis, the tiers remained the same which meant each European sale only netted around $5.75, a $1.25 discount for each European. The Euro conversion was a long standing issue and the price hike restores the exchange back to the $7 dollars it used to be."
},
{
"docid": "362281",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know how taxes work in Israel, but I imagine it is relatively similar to taxes in the US. In the US you need to pay taxes on investment earnings when you sell them or in this case trade them for something of value. The amount that would typically would be taxed on would be the difference between how much you paid for the currency and the value of the item you traded it for. In theory there shouldn't be any difference in trading bitcoins versus dollars or euros. Reality is that they are rather weird and I don't know what category they would fall into. Are they a currency or a collectors item? I think this is all rather hypothetical because there is no way for any government to track digital currencies and any taxes paid would be based on the honor system. I am not an account and the preceding was not tax advice..."
},
{
"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."
}
] |
3829 | Are all VISA cards connected with bank accounts? | [
{
"docid": "523850",
"title": "",
"text": "In the United States there are 3 main types of cards. There are organizations that push a credit card with their branding. They aren't a bank so they partner with a bank to offer the card. In the US many colleges and professional sports teams will market a credit card with the team or universities colors and logo. The bank handles the details and the team/university gets a flat fee or a portion of the fees. Many even have annual fees. They market to people who want to show their favorite team colors on their credit card, and are willing to pay extra. Some of these branded cards do come with extra perks: Free shipping, discounts on tickets, being able to buy tickets earlier. There are 4 other types of cards that have limited usage: What makes it confusing is that large business can actually turn a portion of the corporation into a bank. Walmart has been doing this, and so have casinos."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "139976",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think that you're missing one significant point: NFC is not only used for payments. It's a general protocol (\"\"Near-Field Communication\"\") that is supposed to provide easy connectivity between adjacent devices. As such, built-in encryption/security are counter-productive the same way as built-in encryption/security are counter-productive in IP: you're forcing something from a higher layer on a lower layer. Applications that use NFC but don't need this extra security will pay unnecessary penalty. Here come providers like Apple Pay, Android Pay, Samsung Pay and others. They provide applications that use NFC for specific purpose. And they provide the security needed for that purpose. Banks are welcome to introduce their own applications, but they lack the client base to make it wide enough spread for POS providers to include it. Visa/Mastercard have their own \"\"near-field\"\" solutions already that are embedded in cards themselves, and are not necessarily interested in competing with software giants like Apple or Google in their fields. Phone manufacturers also lack the wide enough client base (with the exception of Samsung, which is very popular and as the result is able to pull off its own payment system - I think they're partnered with Visa).\""
},
{
"docid": "552607",
"title": "",
"text": "Visa and Mastercard are not consumer-oriented companies. They do not consider individual consumers as their direct clients, and do not sell directly to them. Instead, their clients are financial institutions who participate in their networks (which is what they're selling). The institutions target the individual consumers (merchants and credit card holders). American Express, for example, has a different business model. AX doesn't only sell network services to financial institutions, but also services to individual consumers. You can get a AX credit card/merchant account directly with AX, or through their client bank."
},
{
"docid": "176596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\""
},
{
"docid": "441342",
"title": "",
"text": "In a similar situation I wrote about How I Made $4,000+ on a Cash Back Credit Card Offer. The total was actually $4550, and was from an insane offer from a new credit card my bank advertised. 10% cash back on all spending during the first 90 days. I wondered if gift card purchases counted, and more than store cards, I saw that Visa gift cards with a $500 value sold for a $4.95 fee. A 1% hit. It would have been foolish to load up, and realize that they were somehow excluded, so I bought 2 and followed the transaction on line. When I saw the 10% credit, I went full steam, and bought these, $2000 at a time, as that was the limit CVS imposed. In the end, I stopped at $50,000. (And the bank killed the online offer about $25K into this, but still honored my 90 days) Yes, I had to make payments mid cycle to avoid the card limit ($20K), but in the end, the bit of effort paid off. It took a bit over a year and a half to burn through them. In hindsight, I'd do it for $100K if the opportunity came up. Cash in the bank is earning near zero. TL:DR Make a small purchase and confirm your card gives you the bonus you expect."
},
{
"docid": "348955",
"title": "",
"text": "In older days the merchants and their merchant banks[or service providers] would take funds in their currency. Say in this case USD. When the charge hits the issuer bank, the merchant and merchant bank gets there USD and were happy. The user would get charged in local currency Shekel in this case. The rate applied by his bank [and card provider, Visa/Master also take a cut] is the standard shelf rate to individuals. When business growing and banking becoming more sophisticated, lots of Merchant Banks and Merchants have created a new business, if you offer Shekel to all users then you have lots of Shekel that you can convert into USD. So in this model, the Merchant makes some more profit from Fx spread, the Merchant Bank makes good money in Fx. Your Bank [and card network] loose out. You stand to gain because you potentially get a better rate. All this theory is good. But the rates are moving and its quite difficult to find out if the rates offered directly by EI AI would be better than those offered by your bank. I have no experience in this example, but I have tried this with large shops, buy 2 items one charge in GBP and other in local currency around 2-3 times spread over a year. The difference in rate was close to identical, at times better or worse in range of .02%"
},
{
"docid": "115548",
"title": "",
"text": "There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card."
},
{
"docid": "549380",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First and foremost - make sure where you are purchasing the product is a reputable organization. Secondly (coming from a biased computer geek) - be aware that Apple is a content trap. Now on to my answer to your question... How do \"\"Preferred Account\"\" programs work? They're \"\"Preferred\"\" because they tend to bring in more money to the lender. It may say No payments for 6 months but the fine print may have you being charged interest during those 6 months, meaning your new shiny computer will be costing more than the sticker price. The good side is that you don't have to send in any actual payments for 6 months, but be aware that you'll probably be paying more than advertised. What are the different ways I can do it? Your listed options 1 & 2 are both good ways to pay for your new computer. Yes, option 1 will charge you sales tax, but are you sure paying online excludes sales tax? Some states mandate it. Option 2 is a viable option too - probably your best option. 1st - there is possibly no sales tax with purchases made online, although there may be a delivery charge. 2nd - you're not committing to an additional monthly bill, you are essentially paying with cash, just directly from your bank account. No interest charge! 3rd - that little Visa logo is your friend. Purchases made through Visa & MasterCard (whether it's a credit or debit card) normally have an auto-extended warranty feature (you may want to verify with Visa before taking my word on it). Typically they double any manufacture's warranty. Lastly - you can always set up a PayPal account and link it to your bank account. Assuming the site you plan on purchasing the computer from accepts PayPal.\""
},
{
"docid": "521753",
"title": "",
"text": "I am on employment based visa in USA and want to send dollars from USA to India from my savings (after paying Tax). How much maximum dollars I can send in a day? month? or in a year regularly? There is no such limit. You can transfer as money you like to yourself anywhere. To pay the Bank Loan-student Loan how much maximum dollars I can send in a day, in a month or in a year? to pay that I have to pay directly to that Bank Account or in any account I can send money? You can transfer to your NRE account in India and move it further. You can also send it directly to the Loan Account [Check with the Bank, they may not be able to receive funds from outside for a Loan Account] My mother is having Green Card. She is not working. She has a NRE account in India. Can I send dollars from my USA Bank account to her NRE account in India? what are the rules for that? any Tax or limit for that? Or I have to get any permission before sending it? If you are sending money to your mother, it would come under Gift Tax act in US. There is no issue in India. Suggest you transfer to your own NRE account."
},
{
"docid": "162723",
"title": "",
"text": "In my experience dealing with credit cards and store cards, you may find that the store card is much more flexible than the credit card in terms of the enforcement of the card agreement. For instance, I've missed payments on credit cards and only been 1 day late and saw a rate increase, but on a store card when the same thing happened, it was like they didn't even notice. Granted, this was a 100% store card with no VISA/MC logo on it, and it was through their bank. This may not be true of all store cards and your experience may differ, but I felt like the store card was more of a tool for acquiring the merchandise and helping the store make a sale than it was for some big bank to make money off of my interest. With credit cards, you are the product, and the bank makes money purely from interest. The store, on the other hand, makes money from selling the product, and credit helps increase sales. My suggestion is to avoid credit altogether as all debt is risk, but if you must use credit, you may have a better experience with the store card. Of course, don't forget to consider the interest rates, payment plan, and other fees that may apply as they may affect your decision in terms of which to go with."
},
{
"docid": "134563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, merchants are charged. Visa/Mastercards charge 1 to 2%, of which some part goes to the Visa/MC and the rest to the issuing bank (if you have an HDFC Bank Visa card, HDFC bank is the issuing bank. And yes, you can get a discount from the merchant - while it probably isn't allowed by Visa/MC, some merchants still provide discounts for cash. But you won't get it at places like supermarkets or large brand retail. Late fees + charges can be huge. In multiple ways - first, they all seem to charge a late fee of Rs. 300-500 nowadays, plus service tax of 10%. Then, you will pay interest from the bill date to the eventual payment date. And further, any new purchases you make will attract interest from the day they are made (no \"\"interest-free\"\" period). Interest rates in India on CCs are over 3% a month, so you really must get rid of any open balances. I've written a longish piece on this at http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/The-good-bad-ugly-credit-yahoofinancein-2903990423.html\""
},
{
"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": "364269",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply \"\"brand X\"\" has been compromised, therefore everything \"\"brand X\"\" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank.\""
},
{
"docid": "5419",
"title": "",
"text": "As a former Target employee, the effort to find offending gift cards and deactivate them, as well as to get a list of all Amex/Visa cards already bought with the cards and report them to Amex/Visa for deactivation would be rather trivial for Target. I don't think they'd do it, but it's not that hard."
},
{
"docid": "503171",
"title": "",
"text": "Some large merchants do not give discounts for cash payments as this does not work out any cheaper for them, vs Credit Card payments. In Credit Card typically fees given to all the 3 parties (Merchant bank, Issuer Bank and Visa) would be around 3%. If cash payment is made, and the amounts are large (say at Walmart / K-Mart they have to deposit such cash at Banks, Have a provision to Storing Cash at Stores, People to count the cash. So essentially they will have to pay for Cash Officer to count, Bigger Safe to store, Transport & Security & Insurance to take Cash to Bank Plus Banks charge around 1% charge for counting the large cash being deposited. This cash would be in local branch where as the operations are centralized and Walmart/K-Mart would need the money in central account, it takes time to get it transferred to a central account, and there is a fee charged by Bank to do this automatically. On the other hand, smaller merchants would like cash as they are operated stand-alone and most of their purchases are also cash. Hence they would tend to give a discount for cash payment if any."
},
{
"docid": "184524",
"title": "",
"text": "The key is that you need to use your debit card to earn the higher interest rate. The bank can offer a higher interest rate on accounts connected with a debit card because: They earn additional income through debit card fees charged towards account holders, among other things. They offer the higher interest rate specifically to encourage people to use their debit cards. By offering a joint checking/savings account that requires you to use your debit card, the bank is assuming that you'll keep more money in your account than you would in a standard checking-only account. Your higher balance translates into more money the bank can loan out or invest, which usually leads to higher profit for them. Businesses pay fees to the bank to accept debit cards. These fees represent another source of profit for the bank. The more you use your debit card, the more the bank earns in fees, so the bank encourages you to use your debit card more frequently through incentives like a higher interest rate or waiving fees on your account if you use your card enough. Plus, since it's likely that an individual who maintains a fairly high balance in an account linked to a debit card is going to spend more (simply because they can spend more), banks will sometimes waive fees on the consumer side for balances over a certain amount."
},
{
"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": "587580",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your credit card limit is nothing more than a simple number. When you purchase something, the merchant receives a number (i.e. the amount of the transaction) from your card company (e.g. Visa) in their bank account, and that number is subtracted from your limit (added to your balance). The amount is recorded, and isn't changed, so that's how they get the \"\"exact\"\" amount you paid. Transferring a number is easier than the retailer having to wait for cash to get from you to your card company to them. Moving numbers around is the basis of the modern financial system. And yes, it is always a risk to let someone else have your credit card number. An untrustworthy company/person may use it to charge you without your permission, or if they have your full details they could use it as if they were you. With a reputable retailer like Amazon, the main risk is data theft: If a security hole is found in Amazon's system, someone could steal your credit card info and misuse it.\""
},
{
"docid": "81416",
"title": "",
"text": "When you give your credit card number and authorize a merchant to charge your credit card, the merchant then gives the information to their merchant processor which in turns bills the bank that issued the card (it's a little more complex and it all happens instantly unless the merchant is using the very old fasion imprinting gizmos). It is possible for a merchant to attempt to charge you more than you authorized but if they do they risk a fine ($25-$50 for a chargeback) from their processor, the legitimate portion of the charge as well as increasing the processing fees charged by their processor or even the possibility of loosing their merchant account entirely and being permanently blacklisted by Visa/Mastercard. In short no legitimate business is going to intentionally over charge your credit card. There really isn't significant risk in using a reputable online retailer's order forms. There is the possibility that their database could be compromised but that risk is lower than the risk of having an employee steal your credit number when you give it to them in person. Besides in the US at least the most you can legally be held liable for is $50 assuming you notice the discrepancy within 60 days of statement the charge appears on and most banks limit liability to $0. Over the years I have had a number of different credit card numbers stolen and used fraudulently and I have never had to pay any fraudulent charges."
},
{
"docid": "158169",
"title": "",
"text": "Speaking from experience, yes (this was 9 years ago though and may have changed due to stricter laws). I lived in London and was moving to NYC and wanted to have a functioning bank account upon arrival. I banked in London with HSBC and asked them if they could set me up. They connected me with the right people in the US and after many forms I had a fully functional US bank account with a foreign address and without having a social security number - and I was (am) just your average person. You will most likely not be able to get a credit card through them because of lack of credit history (unless you are ridiculously rich or go for a secured credit card), but a debit card should be possible.* My advice is to talk to your local bank and see if they can help you, although it will help if they operate in the US. Good luck! *I have heard from various expats that American Express may be willing to issue cards in the states based on their existing relation with clients in other countries, but I digress. If you have an Amex in Switzerland or Sweden I would recommend talking to them."
}
] |
3829 | Are all VISA cards connected with bank accounts? | [
{
"docid": "291438",
"title": "",
"text": "Not necessarily. You can issue credit cards without a bank involved, although companies which do so may have additional legal complications, such as usury regulations. As an example, AmEx is a network which also issues cards themselves. The company is not a bank; they sold their banking subsidiary in 2007. It's also possible to get a bank-issued credit card without banking with that same company."
}
] | [
{
"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": "542783",
"title": "",
"text": "Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2."
},
{
"docid": "184524",
"title": "",
"text": "The key is that you need to use your debit card to earn the higher interest rate. The bank can offer a higher interest rate on accounts connected with a debit card because: They earn additional income through debit card fees charged towards account holders, among other things. They offer the higher interest rate specifically to encourage people to use their debit cards. By offering a joint checking/savings account that requires you to use your debit card, the bank is assuming that you'll keep more money in your account than you would in a standard checking-only account. Your higher balance translates into more money the bank can loan out or invest, which usually leads to higher profit for them. Businesses pay fees to the bank to accept debit cards. These fees represent another source of profit for the bank. The more you use your debit card, the more the bank earns in fees, so the bank encourages you to use your debit card more frequently through incentives like a higher interest rate or waiving fees on your account if you use your card enough. Plus, since it's likely that an individual who maintains a fairly high balance in an account linked to a debit card is going to spend more (simply because they can spend more), banks will sometimes waive fees on the consumer side for balances over a certain amount."
},
{
"docid": "141579",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\""
},
{
"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": "345242",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a possibility of misuse. Hence it should be shared judiciously. Sharing it with large / trusted organization reduces the risk as there would be right process / controls in place. Broadly these days PAN and other details are shared for quite a few transactions, say applying for a Credit Card, Opening Bank Account, Taking a Phone connection etc. In most of the cases the application is filled out and processed by 3rd party rather than the service provider directly. Creating Fake Employee records is a possibility so is the misuse to create a fake Bank account in your name and transact in that account. Since one cannot totally avoid sharing PAN details to multiple parties... It helps to stay vigilant by monitoring the Form 26AS from the Govt website. Any large cash transactions / additional salary / or other noteworthy transactions are shown here. It would also help to monitor your CIBIL reports that show all the Credit Card and other details under your name."
},
{
"docid": "325713",
"title": "",
"text": "There are 2 parties when we say credit card companies: The bank that gives you a card & VISA/Mastercard For a Bank the revenues generally come from: For VISA/Mastercard the revenue is from: P.S. Have not covered American express here but in short it is a combination of the above 2 models"
},
{
"docid": "78594",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit cards also take a cut. Canada's interac system (use your bank card at the POS to instantly transfer money from your bank to the store) costs merchants 15 cents per transaction. Visa and Mastercard charge about 3% per transaction. They justify this by saying that cards encourage people to spend more and stores can make bigger sales. With cash, I am limited to what's in my pocket, but with visa or interac, if something is just a little more expensive than I'd planned on spending, it's no big deal, I just swipe the card, type my pin and have the product. If the option is between a sale -x%, or no sale at all, the former beats the latter. Square is offering a service that is convenient as hell, and they make it very easy to set up and use. Convenience and ease of use are something that people are willing to pay for."
},
{
"docid": "443487",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally, credit card networks (as opposed to debit/ATM cards that may or may not have Visa/MC logos) have a rule that a merchant must accept any credit card with their logo. Visa rules for merchants in the US say it explicitly: Accept all types of valid Visa cards. Although Visa card acceptance rules may vary based on country specific requirements or local regulations, to offer the broadest possible range of payment options to cardholder customers, most merchants choose to accept all categories of Visa debit, credit, and prepaid cards.* Unfortunately the Visa site for China is in Chinese, so I can't find similar reference there. You can complain against a merchant who you think had violated Visa rules here. That said, its not a law, its a contract between the merchant processor and the Visa International organization, and merchants are known to break these rules here and there (most commonly - refusing to accept foreign cards, including in the US). Also, local laws may affect these contracts (for example, in the US it is legal to set minimum amount requirements when accepting credit cards). This only affects credit card processing, and merchants that don't accept credit cards may still accept debit cards since those work in different networks, under a different set of rules. Those who accept credit cards, are also required to accept debit cards (at least if used as credit)."
},
{
"docid": "587580",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your credit card limit is nothing more than a simple number. When you purchase something, the merchant receives a number (i.e. the amount of the transaction) from your card company (e.g. Visa) in their bank account, and that number is subtracted from your limit (added to your balance). The amount is recorded, and isn't changed, so that's how they get the \"\"exact\"\" amount you paid. Transferring a number is easier than the retailer having to wait for cash to get from you to your card company to them. Moving numbers around is the basis of the modern financial system. And yes, it is always a risk to let someone else have your credit card number. An untrustworthy company/person may use it to charge you without your permission, or if they have your full details they could use it as if they were you. With a reputable retailer like Amazon, the main risk is data theft: If a security hole is found in Amazon's system, someone could steal your credit card info and misuse it.\""
},
{
"docid": "134563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, merchants are charged. Visa/Mastercards charge 1 to 2%, of which some part goes to the Visa/MC and the rest to the issuing bank (if you have an HDFC Bank Visa card, HDFC bank is the issuing bank. And yes, you can get a discount from the merchant - while it probably isn't allowed by Visa/MC, some merchants still provide discounts for cash. But you won't get it at places like supermarkets or large brand retail. Late fees + charges can be huge. In multiple ways - first, they all seem to charge a late fee of Rs. 300-500 nowadays, plus service tax of 10%. Then, you will pay interest from the bill date to the eventual payment date. And further, any new purchases you make will attract interest from the day they are made (no \"\"interest-free\"\" period). Interest rates in India on CCs are over 3% a month, so you really must get rid of any open balances. I've written a longish piece on this at http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/The-good-bad-ugly-credit-yahoofinancein-2903990423.html\""
},
{
"docid": "97977",
"title": "",
"text": "Keep in mind that in order to fund your online casino account, you either had to provide credit/debit card info, or you had to give them your bank account number band routing number already. Now, assuming you've seen no fraudulent activity on your account(s) since then, and it was you who initiated the contact with them, what they're asking for is not totally unreasonable, nor is it all that unusual. MANY companies require you to provide account/routing info to do financial business with them, which doesn't automatically equate to nefarious purposes, so don't let yourself go down that rabbit hole unless there's some other serious red flag to the situation which you haven't shared with us. It is a bit odd they'd send you a check for a portion of the winnings, but maybe that's to demonstrate good faith on their part as to why they need you to provide them information to send the remainder of your winnings. That being said, the suggestion to open a bank account solely for purposes of receiving your winnings is a good one. I would go a step further and, once the transfer is made, go to the bank in person and withdraw it in cash. Then you can deposit it into your regular bank account without there being any possible connection between the two, just in case you decide to indulge your fears about this. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "220828",
"title": "",
"text": "\"standard NFC-for-payments ... reads a straight copy of the card details ... does not generate any one-time-use card number ... does not employ any over-the-air encryption or even a challenge-response system [?] The normal contactless payment process does involve transaction-specific cryptographic-signatures. However what process is used depends on the vendor equipment and the scheme (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, ...) A \"\"Magstripe mode\"\", if supported, allows the card number and expiry date to be read. There is a good description at Level2Kernel which covers \"\"Magnetic Stripe Mode\"\" and \"\"EMV Mode\"\" etc for each scheme (Mastercard, Visa etc do things differently). MasterCard Contactless MasterCard transactions can be performed in either EMV mode or Mag-Stripe mode. After Entry Point has initiated a transaction the MasterCard Kernel issues a Get Processing Options command. In the response from the card a data object called the Application Interchange Profile (AIP) determines whether the transaction will continue in either EMV Mode or Mag-Stripe Mode. The AIP also determines if “On-device cardholder verification” (CDCVM) is supported. EMV Mode (M/Chip) The commands exchanged with the card for EMV Mode closely resemble those used for an EMV contact transaction, with Read Record commands being used to retrieve all the card data, followed by a Generate Application Cryptogram (GENAC) request to obtain a unique, transaction-specific, cryptogram from the card. Once all of these exchanges have been completed, the card can be removed from the RF field. However, unlike for contact transactions, not all the transaction processing occurs before the card exchanges have been completed. This is to optimise the contactless transaction performance by reducing the amount of time the card is required to remain in the RF field. (my emphasis) According to VISA UK Our technology uses the chip on your card to generate unique cryptograms (that’s techie speak for a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted or encoded text) and digital signatures to protect your payments. Digital signatures are like handwritten signatures in some ways – but they are much more difficult to forge. (my emphasis) According to the UK Card Association Rumour: A fraudster can steal my details from my contactless card. Fact: You have to be extremely close to someone for their gadget to be able to read your card - and even then all they would ever get is the card number and expiry date. That’s the same information you see by simply looking at the front of any card.There’s no way anyone can get the security code on the back of the card, your name and address, or bank account details. The vast majority of online retailers require additional details like these and others to make a purchase. However, according to a Guardian newspaper report of 2015-07-25: Researchers bought cheap, widely available card scanners from a mainstream website to see if they could “steal” key details from a contactless card. They tested 10 different credit and debit cards, that were meant to be coded to “mask” personal data, and were able to read crucial data that was meant to be hidden. It then went shopping with the information it had obtained and was able to successfully place orders for items including a £3,000 television set. So yes, even in the civilized world, our security is undermined by a combination of: How does Apple Pay work? See Apple Pay Must Be Using the Mag-Stripe Mode of the EMV Contactless Specifications Clearly, Apple Pay must following the EMV contactless specifications of books C-2, C-3 and C-4 for MasterCard, Visa and American Express transactions respectively. More specifically, it must be following what I called above the “mobile phone profile” of the contactless specifications. It must be implementing the contactless mag-stripe mode, since magnetic stripe infrastructure is still prevalent in the US. It may or may not be implementing contactless EMV mode today, but will probably implement it in the future as the infrastructure for supporting payments with contact cards is phased in over the next year in the US.\""
},
{
"docid": "115459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can split payments, and nobody judges you because most prepaid cards are actually gift cards. They just think you have generous friends. When you use Visa/MC at a vendor, they get dinged around 2-3% plus 35 cents flat-rate. So when you ask them to charge 77 cents to the card, you're essentially asking they give half of it to Visa/MC. Which is unfair. A charity won't turn it down, but it's wasted. So how do you solve this problem? If you see a small merchant using Square or PayPal Here, their merchant agreements charge a flat rate (2.75% and 2.70% respectively) with no flat rate per transaction. If you see they are on PayPal/Square, go for it. Obviously PayPal itself doesn't have that problem, because they have a really, really good deal with Visa and Mastercard. So feel free to buy yourself credit on your PayPal account with these residual values. Amazon probably has a similar deal. You are getting these small amounts because you aim to pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $25 on it. Reasonable, but it causes this. Flip it around: pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $20 on it, consume the $20 value, and pay the $2.69 in cash. You may need to tell the cashier exactly the amount to charge (e.g. $20.00) especially if it is a Visa/MC card. It will certainly go faster if you do. The cashier may be able to pull up the balance, but it's an extra procedure, and an inexperienced cashier may struggle with it / have to call the manager etc. - not worth it in my book."
},
{
"docid": "5419",
"title": "",
"text": "As a former Target employee, the effort to find offending gift cards and deactivate them, as well as to get a list of all Amex/Visa cards already bought with the cards and report them to Amex/Visa for deactivation would be rather trivial for Target. I don't think they'd do it, but it's not that hard."
},
{
"docid": "509681",
"title": "",
"text": "You could get a prepaid Visa card. You don't need a bank account and at least here in Australia you just buy them over the counter at the post office. I believe the U.K. has a similar card: Travel Money Card Plus from the Post Office. The card requires a UK passport or driving license. Other European countries may have similar prepaid cards but may also require resident status and electronic identity / credit inquiry."
},
{
"docid": "346784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes it is possible, the Google Summer of Code students have been doing so for years. They get a Prepaid card and then can spend that in there local countries. They have the billing address as Google and the shipping address as their own. A few retailers have trouble but that just their systems. The trouble people have had is more in transferring the money to their personal accounts, usually there is a charge on this transfer. Transfer money from US (\"\"prepaid\"\") VISA Debit to AU bank account\""
},
{
"docid": "158169",
"title": "",
"text": "Speaking from experience, yes (this was 9 years ago though and may have changed due to stricter laws). I lived in London and was moving to NYC and wanted to have a functioning bank account upon arrival. I banked in London with HSBC and asked them if they could set me up. They connected me with the right people in the US and after many forms I had a fully functional US bank account with a foreign address and without having a social security number - and I was (am) just your average person. You will most likely not be able to get a credit card through them because of lack of credit history (unless you are ridiculously rich or go for a secured credit card), but a debit card should be possible.* My advice is to talk to your local bank and see if they can help you, although it will help if they operate in the US. Good luck! *I have heard from various expats that American Express may be willing to issue cards in the states based on their existing relation with clients in other countries, but I digress. If you have an Amex in Switzerland or Sweden I would recommend talking to them."
},
{
"docid": "562378",
"title": "",
"text": "The number that really matters in this situation is your age of your longest account. Opening a new account is a good idea, but closing an old one may have an impact on your score if you have no other active accounts. If you have another card, or an overdraft line of credit or a car loan that is 4 or 5 years old, you won't see a big impact. I'd suggest calling the card company and asking them to waive the fee. They usually will. In the meantime, I would recommending having one card from each of the major networks. (MC, Visa, Discover, Amex) so you don't run into this again. Just don't open them all at once."
}
] |
3830 | US citizen transferring money to Indian fiance to buy property | [
{
"docid": "54952",
"title": "",
"text": "A. Kindly avoid taking dollars in form of cash to india unless and until it is an emergency. Once the dollar value is in excess of $10,000, you need to declare the same with Indian customs at the destination. Even though it is not a cumbersome procedure, why unnecessarily undergo all sort of documentation and most importantly at all security checks, you will be asked questions on dollars and you need to keep answering. Finally safety issue is always there during the journey. B.There is no Tax on the amount you declare. You can bring in any amount. All you need is to declare the same. C. It is always better to do a wire transfer. D. Any transfer in excess of $14,000 from US, will atract gift tax as per IRS guidelines. You need to declare the same while filing your Income Tax in US and pay the gift tax accordingly. E. Once your fiance receives the money , any amount in excess of Rs 50,000 would be treated as individual income and he has to show the same under Income from other sources while filing the taxes. Taxes will be as per the slab he falls under. F.Only for blood relatives , this limit of 50,000 does not apply. G. Reg the Loan option, suggest do not opt for the same. Incase you want to go ahead, then pl ensure that you fully comply with IRS rules on Loans made to a foreign person from a US citizen or resident. The person lending the money must report the interest payment as income on his or her yearly tax return provided the loan has interest element. No deduction is allowed if the proceeds are used for personal or non-business purposes.In the case of no-interest loans, most people believe there is no taxable income because no interest is paid. The IRS views this seriously and the tax rules are astonishingly complex when it comes to no-interest loans. Even though no interest is paid to the lender, the IRS will treat the transaction as if the borrower paid interest at the applicable federal rate to the lender and the lender subsequently gifted the interest back to the borrower.The lender is taxed on the imaginary interest income and, depending on the amount, may also be liable for gift tax on the imaginary payment made back to the borrower. Hope the above claryfies your query. Since this involves taxation suggest you take an opinion from a Tax attorney and also ask your fiance to consult a Charted Accountant on the same. Regards"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "229911",
"title": "",
"text": "Please find out whether you are considered to be a tax resident of the US from the date that you received the permanent immigrant visa or from the date that you first enter the US on that visa. If the former, and you received the visa after April 30, you might be a part-year resident of India for Indian Income Tax purposes for the current tax year. You need to convert your bank accounts including Fixed Deposits (the FDs that you mention) to NRO accounts as soon as possible. You will need to keep at least one NRO account open for a year or more to receive the final interest payments on your FDs as well as the proceeds of cashing in the FDs, not to mention any refunds of Indian Income Tax that may be due to you for last year or the current year. Once you are done with all these, follow the procedures outlined in this excellent answer by @Dheer to transfer the money to your US account. At this point, you can close the NRO account if you wish. As PeterK's comment says, it is not a good idea to bring a large sum of cash with you unless you are really really paranoid about banking channels. Note that if you insist on bringing cash (whether it is INR or USD) or negotiable instruments (checks or bank drafts) with you when you land in the US, these will have to be declared on entry if the total exceeds US$ 10K. There is no limit to how much you can bring with you as long as you declare it. Transfers of your own money from India to the US is not taxable income to you in the US, and income tax will already have been paid/withheld on that money in India, and so there is no income tax liability in India either on the sum transferred."
},
{
"docid": "429747",
"title": "",
"text": "For any money you plan on taking back with you to India in a couple of years, you need to consider whether you expect the U.S. dollar to gain strength compared to the Indian rupee, and if so, by enough to make up the difference in interest rates. According to exchange-rates.org, $1 USD would buy you 44.22576 INR on April 29, 2011, and 49.41525 on October 25, 2011. If the Indian rupee keeps on losing strength against the U.S. dollar at that rate, you are far, far better to keep your money in U.S. currency. On the other hand, if the Indian rupee gains strength, you'd be better to convert your money as soon as possible. There are, of course, other options if you plan to keep your money in the U.S., many of which will pay more than 0.01% interest."
},
{
"docid": "300297",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\""
},
{
"docid": "563812",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are a citizen of India and working in Germany, then you are most likely an NRI (NonResident Indian). If so, you are not entitled to hold an ordinary Indian bank account, and all such existing accounts must be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts. If your Indian bank knows about NRO accounts, then it will be eager to assist you in the process of converting your existing accounts to NRO accounts most likely it also offers a money remittance scheme (names like Remit2India or Money2India) which will take Euros from your EU bank account and deposit INR into your NRO account. Or, you can create an NRE (NonResident External) account to receive remittances from outside India. The difference is that interest earned in an NRO account is taxable income to you in India (and subject to TDS, tax deduction at source) while interest earned in an NRE account is not taxable in India. The remittance process takes a while to set up, but once in place, most remittances take 5 to 6 business days to complete."
},
{
"docid": "565782",
"title": "",
"text": "Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered."
},
{
"docid": "93099",
"title": "",
"text": "Are there any IRS regulations I should be aware of when sending money to India? None. As long as you are following the standard banking channels. You are also declaring all the accounts held outside US in your tax returns. FBAR. Is it legal to do so? Yes it is legal. do I have to declare how much I am investing and pay extra taxes? As part of FBAR. Income earned [including interest, capital gains, etc] needs to be paid in India [there are some exemptions for example interest on NRE accounts] as well as in the US [relief can be claimed under DTAA Indian version here and US here]. So if you already have paid taxes on salary and say transfer USD 10K to India; there is no tax on this 10K. If this 10K generates an income of say 2K; this 2K is taxable as per normal classification and rules."
},
{
"docid": "506368",
"title": "",
"text": "I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of."
},
{
"docid": "447828",
"title": "",
"text": "I want to know whether the money I transferred to my NRI Account is taxable. No taxes. As you were NRI the funds you earn are not taxable in India irrespective of whether you transfer to India or keep it in Saudi. You can transfer this back to India anytime in 7 years after you become Resident Indian. I was a NRI in Saudi Arabia from Nov 2009 to October 2011. For the financial year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, you would be treated as resident Indian and you Global income would be taxed. i.e. your income in Saudi from Nov 2009 to March 2010 would be taxed in India. You can claim DTAA. Whether I have to file my returns for those 2 yrs. Ideally Yes. If you have not done, please consult a CA for advice."
},
{
"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": "511066",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "446647",
"title": "",
"text": "I want to send some money to Indian in my saving account but I haven't any NRO/NRE account. It is advisable to Open an NRE account. As an NRI you cannot hold a savings account. Please have this converted into NRO account ASAP. Process or Transaction charges or Tax (levied by Indian bank) on money what I'll send to my saving account in India. I know the process or transaction charges (applied by UK banks) from UK to India. There will be a nominal charge levied by banks in India. If you use dedicated Remittance services [Most Leading Indian Banks offer this], these are mostly free. Is there any limit to get rid off tax? Nope there isn't any limit. This depends on service provider. What types of paper work I'll need to do for showing that income is sent from UK after paying tax. If you transfer to NRE account. There is no paperwork required. It is implicit. If not you have to establish that the funds are received from outside India, keep copies of the transfer request initiated, debits to the Bank Account in UK, your salary slips, Passport stamps etc."
},
{
"docid": "272173",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming you are Indian Citizen / Resident for Tax purposes. Your friend in US Citizen / Resident for tax purposes. As you are borrowing these funds and returning, this would NOT be treated as Gift but as Loan. Ensure that you have the right documentation in place. There is no tax when you receive the funds/loan or rebate when you pay back the loan. From India FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) point of view, if you take loan from friends, you cannot by default repatriate funds. You have to take special permission to repatriate the funds out of India."
},
{
"docid": "237107",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Quite a few Bank in India allow Funds Transfer via ATM. One has to first register the beneficiary account and wait for 24 hrs before transacting. However it looks like \"\"Indian Bank\"\" currently does not offer this service. You can call up Indian Bank and ask if they provide this service. Alternativly use the Internet Banking to transfer funds to CitiBank or any other Bank in India.\""
},
{
"docid": "274359",
"title": "",
"text": "The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements)."
},
{
"docid": "446190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I assume you are filing US taxes because you are a US citizen, resident alien, or other \"\"US person\"\". If you have a total of $10,000 or more in assets in non-US accounts, you are required to file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, also known as FBAR, to report those accounts. See Comparison of Form 8938 and FBAR Requirements. Note this refers to the total balance in the account (combined with any other accounts you may have); the amount you transferred this year is not relevant. Also note that the FBAR is filed separately from your income tax return (it does not go to the IRS), though if you have over $50,000 in offshore assets you may also have to file IRS Form 8938. Simply reporting those accounts does not necessarily mean you will owe extra taxes. Most US taxes are based on income, not assets. According to the page linked, the maximum penalty for a \"\"willful\"\" failure to report such accounts is a fine of $100,000 or 50% of the assets in question, whichever is greater, in addition to possible criminal sanctions. There may be other US filing requirements that I don't know about, so you may want to consult a tax professional. I do not know anything about your filing requirements under Indian law.\""
},
{
"docid": "78597",
"title": "",
"text": "MoneyGram said that the person sending money should also be an Indian. There shouldn't be any such restriction. Can you check again what exactly the issue was? Is there another way so I can get money without any problem. You can try Bank Transfers or alternative remittance like Western Union"
},
{
"docid": "157712",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a US citizen and I want to transfer some amount 10 lakhs+ to my brother from my NRE account in India to his account. My brother is going to purchase something for his business. He is going to return my amount after 3-4 Months From the description it looks like you would like to loan to your brother on repatriation basis. Yes this is allowed. See the RBI Guide here and here for more details. There are some conditions; (iv) Scheme for raising loans from NRIs on repatriation basis Borrowings not exceeding US$ 2,50,000 or its equivalent in foreign exchange by an individual resident in India from his close relatives resident outside India, subject to the conditions that - a) the loan is free of interest; b) the minimum maturity period of the loan is seven years; c) The amount of loan is received by inward remittance in free foreign exchange through normal banking channels or by debit to the NRE/FCNR account of the non-resident lender; d) The loan is utilised for the borrower's personal purposes or for carrying on his normal business activity but not for carrying on agricultural/plantation activities, purchase of immovable property or shares/debentures/bonds issued by companies in India or for re-lending. Although it is mentioned as Seven years, this is revised to one year. Since he cannot deposit into my NRE account I guess he has to deposit it into my NRO account. A repatriate-able loan as above can be deposited into NRE Account. Is there any illegality here doing such transaction? No. Please ensure proper paper work to show this as loan and document the money trail. Also once I get my money in NRO account do I need to pay taxes in India on the money he deposited? This question does not arise."
},
{
"docid": "298587",
"title": "",
"text": "My account is with Indian Bank, if that's relevant. Indian Bank already has SWIFT BIC. Is there any way I can receive such international transfers in my account if the bank branch itself is not SWIFT enabled? The Branch need not be SWIFT enabled. However the Bank needs to be SWIFT enabled. Indian Bank is SWIFT enabled and has several Correspondent Banks in US. See this link on Indian Bank Website Select USD as filter in bottom page. It will list quite a few Banks that are correspondent to the Indian Bank. Click on the Link and it will give you more details. For example with Citi Bank as Correspondent. In the Beneficiary account details fill in your account details etc and send this to the company and they should be able to send you a payment based on this."
},
{
"docid": "401454",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\""
}
] |
3837 | Opening a Roth IRA account, what is the fee structure for Vanguard, Scottrade and TIAA-CREF | [
{
"docid": "345533",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This answer is somewhat incomplete as I don't have definitive conclusions about some parts of your question. Your question includes some very specific subquestions that may best be answered by contacting the investment companies you're considering. I don't see any explicit statement of fees for TIAA-CREF either. I suggest you contact them and ask. There is mention on the site of no-transaction-fee funds (NTF), but I wasn't able to find a list of such funds. Again, you might have to ask. Vanguard also offers some non-Vanguard funds without transaction fees. If you go the Vanguard page on other mutual funds you can use the dropdown on the right to select other fund companies. Those with \"\"NTF\"\" by the name have no transaction fees. Scottrade also offers NTF funds. You can use their screener and select \"\"no load\"\" and \"\"no transaction fee\"\" as some of your filters. You are correct that you want to choose an option that will offer a good lineup of funds that you can buy without transaction fees. However, as the links above show, Vanguard and TIAA-CREF are not the only such options. My impression is that almost any firm that has their own funds will sell them (or at least some of them) to you without a transaction fee. Also, as shown above, many places will sell you other companies' funds for free too. You have plenty of options as far as free trades, so it really depends on what funds you like. If you google for IRA providers you will find more than you can shake a stick at. If you're interested in low-cost index funds, Vanguard is pretty clearly the leader in that area as their entire business is built around that concept. TIAA-CREF is another option, as is Fideltiy (which you didn't mention), and innumerable others. Realistically, though, you probably don't need a gigantic lineup of funds. If you're juggling money between more than a handful of funds, your investment scheme is probably needlessly complex. The standard advice is to decide on a broad allocation of money into different asset classes (e.g., US stocks, US bonds, international stocks, international bonds), find a place that offers funds in those areas with low fees and forget about all the other funds.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "70730",
"title": "",
"text": "With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals."
},
{
"docid": "161008",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This answer is provided mostly to answer your question \"\"what is it?\"\" A variable annuity is a contract between you and an insurance company. The insurance company takes a bunch of money up front as a lump sum, and will pay you some money yearly - like earning interest. (In this case, they will probably be paying you the money into the account itself). How much they return is, as the name suggests, variable. It can be anything, depending on what the contract says. Mostly, there will be some formula based on the stock market - frequently, the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index. There will typically be some minimum returns and maximum returns - if the stock market tanks, your annuity will not lose a ton of value, but if the stock market goes up a lot in one year (as it frequently does), you will not gain a lot of value either. If you are going to be in the market for a long amount of time (decades, e.g. \"\"a few years out of college\"\" and then a little), it makes a lot more sense to invest in the stock market directly. This is essentially what the insurance company is going to do, except you can cut out the middleman. You can get a lot more money that way. You are essentially paying the insurance company to take on some stock market risk for you - you are buying some safety. Buying safety like this is expensive. Variable annuities are the right investment for a few people in a few circumstances - mostly, if you're near retirement, it's one way to have an option for a \"\"safe\"\" investment, for a portion (but not all) of your portfolio. Maybe. Depending on the specifics, a lot. If you are under, like, 50 or so? Almost certainly a terrible investment which will gradually waste your money (by not growing it as fast as it deserves to be grown). Since you want to transfer it to Vanguard, you can probably call Vanguard, ask to open a Roth IRA, and request assistance rolling it over from the place it is held now. There should be no legal restrictions or tax consequences from transferring the money from one Roth IRA account to another.\""
},
{
"docid": "570805",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Basically, a 401(k) can have what is called a \"\"loan\"\", but is more properly a \"\"structured withdrawal and repayment agreement\"\". This allows you to access your nest egg to pay for unforeseen expenses, without having to actually cash it out and pay the 10% penalty plus taxes. You can get up to half of your current savings, with an absolute cap of $50k, minus the balance of any other loan outstanding. While there is a balance outstanding, you must make regular scheduled payments. The agreement does include an interest rate, but basically that interest money goes into your account. The downside of a 401(k) loan is the inflexibility; you must pay the scheduled amount, and you also have to keep the job for which you're paying into the 401(k); if you quit or are fired, the balance of the loan must usually be paid in 60 days, or else the financial institution will consider the unpaid balance a \"\"withdrawal\"\" and notify the IRS to that effect. Now, with a Roth account, it works a little differently. Basically, contributions to any Roth account (IRA or 401(k)) are post-tax. But, that means the money's now yours; there is no penalty or additional taxes levied on any amount you cash out. So, a loan basically just provides structure; you withdraw, then pay back under structured terms. But, if you need a little cash for a good reason, it's usually better just to cash out some of the principal of a Roth account and then be disciplined enough to pay back into it.\""
},
{
"docid": "73344",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unless your 401(k) plan is particularly good (i.e. good fund choices with low fees), you probably want to contribute enough to get the maximum match from your employer, then contribute to an IRA through a low-cost brokerage like Vanguard or Fidelity, then contribute more to your 401(k). As JoeTaxpayer said, contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free, so they are useful for early retirement. But certainly use your 401(k) as well--the tax benefits almost certainly outweigh the difficulty in accessing your money. JB King's link listing ways to access retirement money before the traditional age is fairly exhaustive. One of the main ways you may want to consider that hasn't been highlighted yet is IRS section 72(t) i.e. substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP). With this rule you can withdraw early from retirement plans without penalties. You have a few different ways of calculating the withdrawal amount. The main risk is you have to keep withdrawing that amount for the greater of five years or until you reach age 59½. In your case this is is only 4-5 years, which isn't too bad. Finally, in addition to being able to withdraw from a Roth IRA tax- and penalty-free, you can do the same for Roth conversions, provided 5 years have passed. So after you leave a job, you can rollover 401(k) money to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth IRA (the caveat being you have to pay taxes on the amount as income at this point). But after 5 years you can access the money without penalty, and no taxes since they've already been paid. This is commonly called a \"\"Roth conversion ladder\"\".\""
},
{
"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": "335991",
"title": "",
"text": "I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan."
},
{
"docid": "439402",
"title": "",
"text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests."
},
{
"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": "219208",
"title": "",
"text": "Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts."
},
{
"docid": "231227",
"title": "",
"text": "The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices."
},
{
"docid": "551145",
"title": "",
"text": "None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth."
},
{
"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": "433371",
"title": "",
"text": "BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "308150",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\""
},
{
"docid": "297290",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\""
},
{
"docid": "400196",
"title": "",
"text": "Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require."
},
{
"docid": "553031",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice."
},
{
"docid": "64459",
"title": "",
"text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match."
},
{
"docid": "562964",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have a Roth IRA with Scottrade, and they allow me to write cash secured puts, as well as covered calls. I can also purchase calls or puts, if I choose. When I write a cash secured put, it automatically deducts the amount required to purchase the shares at the strike price from my \"\"cash available for transactions\"\".\""
}
] |
3859 | Buying an investment property in Australia - what are the advantages and disadvantages of building a house vs buying an existing one? | [
{
"docid": "230261",
"title": "",
"text": "When buying investment properties there are different levels of passive investment involved. At one end you have those that will buy an investment property and give it to a real estate agent to manage and don't want to think of it again (apart from watching the rent come in every week). At the other end there are those that will do everything themselves including knocking on the door to collect the rent. Where is the best place to be - well somewhere in the middle. The most successful property investors treat their investment properties like a business. They handle the overall management of the properties and then have a team taking care of the day-to-day nitty gritty of the properties. Regarding the brand new or 5 to 10 year old property, you are going to pay a premium for the brand new. A property that is 5 years old will be like new but without the premium. I once bought a unit which was 2 to 3 years old for less than the original buyer bought it at brand new. Also you will still get the majority of the depreciation benefits on a 5 year old property. You also should not expect too much maintenance on a 5 to 10 year old property. Another option you may want to look at is Defence Housing. They are managed by the Department of Defence and you can be guaranteed rent for 10 years or more, whether they have a tenant in the property or not. They also carry out all the maintenance on the property and restore it to original condition once their contract is over. The pitfall is that you will pay a lot more for the management of these properties (up to 15% or more). Personally, I would not go for a Defence Housing property as I consider the fees too high and would not agree with some of their terms and conditions. However, considering your emphasis on a passive investment, this may be an option for you."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "321361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have said, congratulations on saving up 75K in cash while seemingly not neglecting other areas of personal finance. Considering that only 15% of Americans have more than 10K saved this is quite a feat. source If you sell your old house, and buy the new one you will still be in really good financial shape. No need to comment further. Renting your current home and buying a new home introduces a great amount of risk into your life. The risk in this case is mitigated by cash. As others have pointed out, you will need to save a lot more to remove an acceptable amount of risk. Here is what I see: So without paying off your existing house I would see a minimum savings account balance of about double of what you have now. Once you purchase the new house, the amount would be reduced by the down payment, so you will only have about 50K sitting around. The rental emergency fund may be a little light depending on how friendly your state is to landlords. Water heaters break, renters don't pay, and properties can sit vacant. Also anytime you move into a new business there will be mistakes made that are solved by writing checks. Do you have experience running rentals? You might be better off to sell your existing home, and move into a more expensive home than what you are suggesting. You can continue to win at money without introducing a new factor into your life. Alternatively, if you are \"\"bitten by the real estate bug\"\" you could mitigate a lot risk by buying a property that is of similar value to your current home or even less expensive. You can then choose which home to live in that makes the most financial sense. For example some choose to live in the more dilapidated home so they can do repairs as time permits. To me upgrading the home you live in, and renting an expensivish home for a rental is too much to do in such a short time frame. It is assuming far too much risk far to quickly for a person with your discipline. You will get there.\""
},
{
"docid": "339115",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It certainly seems like you are focusing on the emotional factors. That's your blind spot, and it's the surest path to a situation where your husband gets to say \"\"I told you so\"\". I recommend you steer straight into that blind spot, and focus your studies on the business aspects of buying and owning homes. You should be able to do spreadsheets 6 ways from Sunday, be able to recite every tax deduction you'll get as a homeowner, know the resale impacts of 1 bathroom vs 2, tell a dirty house from a broken house, etc. Everybody's got their favorites, mine are a bit dated but I like Robert Irwin and Robert Allen's books. For instance: a philosophy of Allen's that I really like: never sell. This avoids several problems, like the considerable costs of money, time and nerves of actually selling a house, stress about house prices, mistaking your house's equity for an ATM machine, and byzantine rules for capital gains tax mainly if you rent out the house, which vary dramatically by nation. In fact the whole area of taxes needs careful study. There's another side to the business of home ownership, and that's renting to others. There's a whole set of economics there - and that is a factor in what you buy. Now AirBNB adds a new wrinkle because there's some real money there. Come to understand that market well enough to gauge whether a duplex or triplex will be a money maker. Many regular folk like you have retired early and live off the rental income from their properties. JoeTaxpayer has an interesting way of looking at the finances of housing: if a house doesn't make sense as a a rental unit, maybe it doesn't make sense as a live-in either. So learn how to identify those fundamentals - the numbers. And get in the habit of evaluating houses. Work it regularly until it's second nature. Then, yes, you'll see houses you fall in love with, partly because the numbers work. It also helps to be handy. It really, really changes the economics if you can do your own quality work, because you don't need to spend any money on labor to convert a dirty house into a clean house. And lots of people do, and there's a whole SE just for that. There is a huge difference between going down to the local building supply and getting the water pipe you need, vs. having to call a plumber. And please deal with local businesses, please don't go to the Big Box stores, their service is abominable, they will cheerfully sell you a gadget salad of junk that doesn't work together, and I can't imagine a colder and less inviting scene to come up as a handy person.\""
},
{
"docid": "187724",
"title": "",
"text": "Since then I wanted to move out of this house because the property taxes are so high and the mortgage payment is a killer. As I understand this is a property jointly owned by your parents and you. As they are not living staying in the house, you have taken over the mortgage payments for this house along with any other maintenance. If you move out of this house; the rent is expected to cover the cost of maintenance and mortgage payments. Are we better of staying in Jersey where our family and friends are? This is an individual decision. It is not just family and friends, but also schooling of kids, penitentially if you change jobs would it also entail changing residence as the workplace would be more near from current home than the new home. I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. There are quite a few posts on first-time-home-buyer Some question like this one and this one and this one are good reads. There are historically times when the Mortgage EMI becomes equal or less than Rent paid. In such times it is good to buy home, than pay rent. Otherwise quite a few invest advisor's mention that fools buy house and wise live in it. There are advantages to buying as well advantages to renting. There is no simple answer and it depends on multitude of factors."
},
{
"docid": "459724",
"title": "",
"text": "Danger. The affidavit is a legal document. Understand the risk of getting caught. If you are planning on using the condo to generate income the chances that you default on the loan are higher than an owner occupied property. That is why they demand more down payment (20%+) and charge a higher rate. The document isn't about making sure you spend 183+ nights a year in the property, it is making sure that it isn't a business, and you aren't letting a 3rd party live in the property. If you within the first year tell the mortgage company to send the bill to a new address, or you change how the property is insured, they will suspect that it is now a rental property. What can they do? Undo the loan; ask for penalty fee; limit your ability to get a mortgage in the future; or a percentage of the profits How likely is it? The exact penalty will be in the packet of documents you receive. It will depend on which government agency is involved in the loan, and the lenders plan to sell it on the secondary market. It can also depend on the program involved in the sale of the property. HUD and sister agencies lock out investors during the initial selling period, They don't want somebody to represent themselves as homeowner, but is actually an investor. Note: some local governments are interested not just in non-investors but in properties being occupied. Therefore they may offer tax discounts to residents living in their homes. Then they will be looking at the number of nights that you occupy the house in a year. If they detect that you aren't really a resident living in the house, that has tax penalties. Suggestion: If you don't want to wait a year buy the condo and let the loan officer know what your plan is. You will have to meet the down payment and interest rate requirements for an investment property. Your question implies that you will have enough money to pay the required 20% down payment. Then when you are ready buy the bigger house and move in. If you try and buy the condo with a non-investment loan you will have to wait a year. If you try and pay cash now, and then get a home equity loan later you will have to admit it is a rental. And still have to meet the investor requirements."
},
{
"docid": "465256",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to own a few investment properties, so I'm pretty familiar with this. As MrChrister mentions, lenders see investment mortgages as higher risk. People who fall into financial trouble are much more likely to let their investment properties go than their personal residence. Consequently, the interest rates and downpayment requirements are generally higher. Typically a mortgage for an investment property will require 20% down, vs. as low as 3-5% down for a personal residence. With excellent credit and some shopping around, you could probably do 10% down. Interest rates are typically about a half-percent higher as well. You'll also find that the more investment properties you have, the harder it becomes to finance new ones. Banks look at debt-to-income ratios to determine if you are over extended. Typically banks like to see that your housing payments are less than 20% or so of your income. However, with rental properties, housing payments generally account for far more than 20% of your rental income. Other income you have can offset that, but after buying 2-3 houses or so, your DTI generally creeps into the range where lenders are uncomfortable lending to you anymore. This is why you'll find that many rental properties are bought on land contracts with owner financing rather than with mortgages."
},
{
"docid": "268640",
"title": "",
"text": "The New York Times has a useful rent-vs-buy calculator. Based on your numbers, it suggests buying makes sense if you stay in the house for 5 years or more. This is just based on default values for various other parameters, though, like mortgage interest rate, rent increase rate, etc. You could try playing around with the numbers. Also as other answerers said, maintenance costs, closing costs, etc., should be factored in. If renting it out is a possibility even if you move out, it could be a better deal. One thing to think about renting-wise is, if you move out, where are you likely to move to? If you move far away, it could be impractical to manage the property as a rental. You could hire someone else to do that, but that would reduce your income from the rent. On the other hand, if you stay in LA, it could be feasible to manage the property yourself. Another key factor is, what rent would you be able to charge for this house? If you can make enough in rent to cover the mortgage payment, you may be in good shape; but due to overpriced real estate markets, sometimes you won't be able to do that, which would mean renting it might not be cost-effective."
},
{
"docid": "186071",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It very much comes down to question of semantics and your particular situation. Some people do not view a house (and most upgrades) as an investment, but rather an expense. I certainly agree that this is probably the case if you pay someone else to make the repairs and upgrades. However, if you are a serious DIYer, that may not be the case. Of course, if the house is a money pit and/or you were unfortunate to buy when prices where ridiculously high, you'll have a hard time making any money on this \"\"investment.\"\" To continue this game of semantics, you may also consider the value you extract from your home while you are living in it. On to the mortgage itself. Chances are that it is a long term, relatively low rate loan and that the interest is deductible. So, there are some disadvantages to paying it down early, even without early payment penalties. Paying down early on the principal is a disadvantage from a tax perspective. How much of a disadvantage hinges on the rate. Now, a debt is a liability on your personal balance sheet. It drags down any returns you may have from investing. However, a home lone is not generally subject to the cardinal rule of paying off your high interest debt before investing. It should not be relatively high and it pays for something necessary. It may be that any credit card debt you have may have paid for something considered necessary. However, with the relatively high interest rates, you have to question just how necessary any credit card debt really is. Not to mention that there is no tax advantage. So, it comes down to the fact that a home loan should be relatively low interest, paying for something you must have and that you hopefully have some tax advantage from the interest you pay on it.\""
},
{
"docid": "163724",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Based on the information you gave, there are dozens if not hundreds of possible theories one could spin about the rental market. Sure, it's possible that there are no listings because rental units on this street are quickly snapped up. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are no listings because almost all the buildings on the street have been abandoned and, aside from this one property that someone is tying to sell you, the rest of the street is inhabited only by wild dogs and/or drug dealers. Or maybe the street is mostly owner-occupied, i.e. the properties are not being rented to anyone. Or maybe it's a commercial district. Or maybe craigslist isn't popular with people who own property on this street for whatever reason. Maybe Syracuse has a city ordinance that says property must be advertised in the newspaper and not on websites, for all I know. Or maybe you missed it because nobody in Syracuse calls it \"\"housing for rent\"\", they all call it \"\"apartments for rent\"\" or \"\"houses for rent\"\" or some local phrase. Or ... or ... or. Before I bought a property, I'd do more research than one search on one web site. Have you visited the property? I don't know how much you're preparing to invest, I have no idea what property prices are in Syracuse, but I'd guess it's at least tens of thousands of dollars. Surely worth making the drive to Syracuse to check it out before buying.\""
},
{
"docid": "310743",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly \"\"no\"\". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not \"\"temporarily\"\" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal. Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it.\""
},
{
"docid": "383921",
"title": "",
"text": "Based on what you've said I think buying a rental is risky for you. It looks like you heard that renting a house is profitable and Zillow supported that idea. Vague advice + a website designed for selling + large amounts of money = risky at the very least. That doesn't mean that rental property is super risky it just means that you haven't invested any time into learning the risks and how you can manage them. Once you learn that your risk reduces dramatically. In general though I feel that rental property has a good risk/reward ratio. If you're willing to put in the time and energy to learn the business then I'd encourage you to buy property. If you're not willing to do that then rentals will always be a crap shoot. One thing about investing in rental property is you have the ability to have more impact on your investment than you do dropping money in the stock market which is good and bad."
},
{
"docid": "580292",
"title": "",
"text": "No. This logic is dangerous. The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house. With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea. By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median? Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes. Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog. Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty. If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use."
},
{
"docid": "425559",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single \"\"balloon payment\"\" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's \"\"75% of the gross proceeds of the sale\"\". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that \"\"gross proceeds\"\" means \"\"before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale\"\"), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that? Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to \"\"refinance\"\" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable. For instance, do they have a lien on the property?\""
},
{
"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": "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": "300229",
"title": "",
"text": "Everyone thinks that before buying the home recognize the condition of the home. In that case we will help you, it is an one most trustable building inspection company in Australia. We carry out by a very good inspector, the Assured Building Inspections are the most and regulatory property inspections and reports company, which is to be held in your city. We are responsible for overseeing the handiest and green services. It's additionally called Australia's biggest pre purchasing building inspections. Building inspectors effect the planning and creation ranges of initiatives and check out compliance with building codes."
},
{
"docid": "208783",
"title": "",
"text": "Do not borrow to invest in real estate. The interest payments will eat up most of your profit (the property management fees might eat up the rest), and you will have significant risk with tenant issues, property value, etc. Many people have made it work - many also lose everything. Real estate can be a great investment, but you can't even afford a house of your own yet, let alone investment property. Keep saving up until you have 20% down to buy a house of your own (ideally that you can put on a 15% fixed mortgage), and pay it off as quickly as you can. Then you can start saving for your first rental property. If that process isn't fast enough for you, you have two options. Increase your income or reduce your expenses. There's no shortcut to wealth-building without taking significant risks. At most I would scale back the 401(k) to the 5% match you get, but you should scale that back up once you have enough for a down payment."
},
{
"docid": "502514",
"title": "",
"text": "Your experience is anecdotal (outside Australia things are different). There are many companies and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that own residential properties (as well as commercial in many cases to have a balanced portfolio). They are probably more common in higher-density housing like condos, apartment buildings, flats, or whatever you like to call them, but they are certainly part of the market for single family units in the suburbs as well. What follows is all my own opinion. I have managed and rented a couple of properties that I had lived in but wasn't ready to sell yet when I moved out. In most cases, I wish I would have sold sooner, rather than renting them out. I think that there are easier/less risky ways to get a good return on your money. Sometimes the market isn't robust enough to quickly sell when it's time to move, and some people like the flexibility of having a property that a child could occupy instead of moving back in at home. I understand those points of view even if I disagree with them."
},
{
"docid": "372884",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income. The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.) This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale. At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, \"\"get professional advice.\"\" And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison. The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile.\""
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
3875 | Does freedom to provide services allow me contracting in Germany without paying taxes there (but in my home EU country)? | [
{
"docid": "136315",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my \"\"home\"\" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my \"\"primary center of life\"\" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "352640",
"title": "",
"text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity."
},
{
"docid": "156405",
"title": "",
"text": "Not sure where the confusion is coming from - software/digital/intangible goods are just like any other product, with regard to VAT. Turns out it's being made complicated by HMRC... Anyone would think they enjoy making everyone who collects tax for free on their behalf a crook! You charge customers everywhere in the EU VAT and pay it to HMRC, the only exception being customers outside the UK who can provide you with a VAT number. For these customers you are free to not charge VAT, as it's assumed they would be reclaiming it in their home country anyway. The above is true until 2015, when the rules become more relaxed - you will not need a VAT number from customers outside the UK in order to exempt yourself from collecting VAT. Turns out you need to be part of the MOSS scheme (more here) which was set up to prevent you having to register for VAT in every country you sell your software. Unless you only sell through app stores, and then it's easier because each sale is treated as you selling your software to the store for it to be sold on. You can reclaim all VAT on your eligible purchases in the UK, just as any other UK VAT registered business would (usual rules apply). And of course you don't collect VAT from anyone outside the EU, so you can either reduce the price of your software or pocket the additional 20%."
},
{
"docid": "480225",
"title": "",
"text": "It wouldn't surprise me to see a country's return to show Inflation + 2-4%, on average. The members of this board are from all over the world, but those in a low inflation country, as the US,Canada, and Australia are right now, would be used to a long term return of 8-10%, with sub 2% inflation. In your case, the 20% return is looking backwards, hindsight, and not a guarantee. Your country's 10 year bonds are just under 10%. The difference between the 10% gov bond and the 20% market return reflects the difference between a 'guaranteed' return vs a risky one. Stocks and homes have different return profiles over the decades. A home tends to cost what some hour's pay per month can afford to finance. (To explain - In the US, the median home cost will center around what the median earner can finance with about a week's pay per month. This is my own observation, and it tends to be correct in the long term. When median homes are too high or low compared to this, they must tend back toward equilibrium.) Your home will grow in value according to my thesis, but an investment home has both value that can rise or fall, as well as the monthly rent. This provides total return as a stock had growth and dividends. Regardless of country, I can't predict the future, only point out a potential flaw in your plan."
},
{
"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": "151903",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even without the $2 fee, I'm jumping ship and switching to Virgin Mobile. Here's my breakdown: Verizon 400 minutes + 100 texts (IIRC), no data, $45 before fees Virgin 300 minutes + unlimited 3G data & text: $35 with purchase of $200+ smartphone. (and virgin uses Sprint for 3G) I'll be informing Verizon that their separate fee hike of $0.15 which, to my knowledge, is still in the works, is what's known legally as a \"\"material averse effect\"\" and allows me to opt out of the contract without paying a cancellation fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "38547",
"title": "",
"text": "> or their ability to purchase more or if you own a business you need the fire service to protect your business operating during/after a crisis as well as your home. Then I'll pay for those services as I use them. Not before. >except its much cheaper for everyone if it is all bound up together, and provided by the government. It's not cheaper for me. I don't have kids, no public school. I work from home, no commuting. It's a lose/lose scenario for me. >I understand the anti big government argument I work for the government. Many of the government services are valuable. It's just seems more logical to pay for them as you use them, like every single other business works. >NO COUNTRY does it the way you are saying Even more reason to test the experiment. Let's give it a try and see what happens. I'm sure I'll be fine. >I understand the anti big government argument Actually you don't. You just want free shit like everyone else."
},
{
"docid": "229061",
"title": "",
"text": "> If a business operates in the US, makes money here, has physical infrastructure and employees here, and utilizes our infrastructure I don't see how you can say that the US doesn't deserve any of that. For fuck's sake, this isn't rocket science. Taxes made on profits from goods and services sold in the U.S. are ALREADY taxed in the U.S. We are talking about profits from GE making engines in Germany and selling to the EU."
},
{
"docid": "52622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I also don't know the specific details for Finland and/or Belgium, however many countries have tax treaties, which generally prevent double taxation (i.e., paying tax in both countries on the same base income). Being that both Finland and Belgium are EU member states, I'm quite certain there's a provision that covers this, and the same would apply: You pay taxes on what you earn while in Finland to Finland, and to Belgium what you earn while in Belgium. All of this is similar to what you presented, however there's also a section where you'd declare how much taxes were paid in other countries. One other thing to note, which will be the determining factor in the above, is whether EU law requires you to change residence to BE for the time you're there. If not then you'll be paying taxes in Finland the entire time on the entire amount. This comes from an Irish governmental site: \"\"By working in another member state and by transferring your residence there, you are likely to become \"\"resident for tax purposes\"\" there. The definition of fiscal residence varies from one member state to another. You must comply with the laws of the country where you have established your residence. The laws on personal taxation vary considerably from one member state to another and you may be liable for taxation in more than one country. In general, you are subject to income tax in the country where you are living but this may not be the case if you are a “posted worker” – see below. In general, property is taxed in the country in which it is situated but, again, there are variations. Tax agreements have been concluded between most of the member states of the EU, which are intended to avoid double taxation, if you derive income from different countries. In general, national fiscal rules must respect the fundamental principle of non-discrimination against nationals of another EU country.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "499750",
"title": "",
"text": "Not asking for any societal benefits. Just to pay for the services I need and want and not a penny more. If you can't offer a service I want I reserve the right to shop around without leaving my home. Just asking to pay the exact same price as everyone else without the special pricing for some. I already opted out of most of the services your claiming I use by leaving the cities where those things are offered. But you keep arguing to steal from me for things I don't want and that can be provided by other providers."
},
{
"docid": "111492",
"title": "",
"text": "First, i think you're doing awesomely for your age. Here's what i'd do in your situation (disclaimer: These are just my personal opinions from experience with my own finances.): I'd do all those things and partition the money so that i ensure i do them all. That may mean not dollar cost averaging monthly but rather quarterly to keep fees-percentages down, but i think that's reasonable for your age. Something i don't think you should overlook with regard to your mortgage is the freedom afforded you by paying off a home. It provides you with the freedom to be out of work, between work, or take an extended leave without the fear of how to pay your bills, the mortgage tending to be a significant percentage of the monthly bills. If that's not something you've considered, not a concern, or not something you care about, then paying off your home probably isn't a priority so I'd drop that step and put more money into investments."
},
{
"docid": "375748",
"title": "",
"text": "Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging."
},
{
"docid": "512429",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So some background here - when corporations, large ones have to deal with tax, they generally try to avoid as much tax as possible. Since there are places that are \"\"tax havens\"\" where there is less to even no tax on profit, a lot of money gets routed there to avoid taxes in other places (US or other unfavorable countries). The problem with this from an IRS/government view is that they keep losing millions/billions of dollars in money because of this. I think the corporate federal tax rate is around 35% and that is without state taxes. Unfortunately when you have less and less money at home - less investment at home happens. Corporations stop doing business at home because they have more money somewhere else - and it makes sense to move more of the company to where the money is or to more favorable tax locations. Even worse - the corporation might just \"\"save\"\" its money somewhere else and kill all reinvestment - thus the money is effectively dead to the rest of the economy. There is a lot of talk about a 'one-time' repatriation tax to allow companies that have dodged their tax burdens to have their money come back to the US (and thus can be used locally) at 10% instead of 35% since there is theroretically a vast amount of cash that would be injected into the US economy. The government is hoping this stimulation will help GDP grow, taxes grow, and help the economy as a whole. In reality, it will reward corporations that broke the law (even though everyone does it), and probably just go into savings accounts here in the US - and not be the \"\"silver bullet\"\" to the economy on verge of collapse again.\""
},
{
"docid": "242707",
"title": "",
"text": "when weed growing is decriminalized, i will not pay eighty dollars for a small sack of it, because now i will be able to go over to my friend billys house and he will give me a large sack of it for five bucks, which he now does anyways, but he only does this for his very good friends, cuz he doesnt want to go to prison and lose him home and his family and he tells me that he would rather live in his house rather than living in prison, lol.. the value of weed will drop thru the floor when i can grow it and not risk losing my freedom and my family and all of my assets, not to mention the criminal record that would prevent me from ever living a productive life ever again. if i said that no person would pay for weed, that is not really what i meant to say.... i meant to say that there will be a lot of weed floating around and you wont need to pay $250.00 per ounce for it, but instead you will probably get an ounce of decent weed for $30.00 funny story, when i was in california there was a weed club that i used to go to, and they were at risk to lose their license to sell weed, and the country bumpkins that worked there put a sign up that basically said this: DONT MAKE US QUIT SELLING WEED, LOL.. CUZ WE DONT REALLY LIKE SELLING CRACK, BUT IF WE CANT SELL WEED, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO SELLING CRACK. i am not kidding, they put this sign up where all of the customers could see it. i almost peed on myself when i read it."
},
{
"docid": "571735",
"title": "",
"text": "Afternoon /u/snappykr22! > It is not right to force people to buy any product or service. Period. I think I understand why you feel this way but I disagree. Taxation is forcing someone to purchase products and services provided by the government that he may or may not want. It is not ideal but just as a family would fall apart without demands on it's members, a country will do the same. Government can not exist if your position is applied across the board and we are all better off with government. > This mandate is just one of the terrible things about Obamacare. Nobody likes the mandate just like nobody likes taxes but both are required to keep their systems functioning. Pointing to the mandate as bad isn't going to change my mind on Obamacare any more than pointing to taxes is going to convince me to support dissolving government. You will need to show me that what we get for the mandate isn't worthwhile. > Obama effectively gave people the option to get insurance AFTER they get sick without consequence of higher prices. Obama did NOT give people this option. This is precisely the scenario the Obamacare mandate prevented because you were forced to get insurance before you got sick. By saying he won't enforce the mandate President Trump IS giving people this option and you are absolutely correct on how that will play out. > I am not a bad person. I'm not greedy, either. Of course not. You put a lot of time into your answer just to explain your position to some guy on the Internet. I appreciate that. > Running water in your home. Central air. Life-saving surgery/drugs and physical therapy. Being able to turn on and off electricity with a switch. Make a pot of coffee right at your kitchen counter top. *snip* The government did not of this. People did. Government is instrumental in providing **ALL** of this. Think about it... > Running water in your home. That is water you and your state have a right to collect because of agreements handled by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. It was collected and stored in public reservoirs, which exist because of dams built by public works projects. Your municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage. > Central air. [People used to install air conditioners with CFCs which are responsible for the Antarctic hole in the ozone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion). It wasn't until the EPA called attention to the problem and the government outlawed the refrigerant in the 80's that things changed. In addition refrigeration is an energy-heavy technology but the energy grid doesn't have to do rolling blackouts because the government mandates minimum insulation on homes and efficiency standards. > Life-saving surgery/drugs and physical therapy. [The US governments funds a little less than half the drug research](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50). We also know these items improve peoples lives because the FDA and NIH have demanded clinical trials to prove new treatments are safe and effective. Don't forget that government institutions like the HHS and CDC have pushed vaccinations and outbreak responses to effectively eradicate nasty diseases like smallpox, polio, and malaria. > Being able to turn on and off electricity with a switch. Electricity has been recognized as a [public good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good) and those companies are strongly regulated. The transmission lines that bring power to your house are required to be open so one power company does not have a monopoly on supplying your house power. Are air is no longer choked with soot because of the EPA and the DOE monitors and regulates nuclear waste. > Make a pot of coffee right at your kitchen counter top. Coffee is imported from South American or African countries thanks to US trade agreements and is safe because of the FDA. Your coffee maker was probably made in China but doesn't burn your house down because the manufacturer is required to follow regulations from the CPSC and if there is a problem you can do something about it thanks to the FTC and/or court system. > And if the government can get the hell out of our way, we can continue to improve the quality of life like we have been for hundreds of years now in this country. The quality of life in the US has been improving in the US for hundreds of years BECAUSE OF government. A capitalistic market is important too but free market principles exist today in Somalia but their lives still suck. The reason is that they are missing a strong central government to fill in the gaps, keep the playing field somewhat fair, and, yes, make a few demands of its citizens in exchange. I hope you're having a great weekend."
},
{
"docid": "34338",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\""
},
{
"docid": "497434",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is the price they want and the price you pay. Everything is negotiable when its a service (always possible, but usually harder with actual \"\"goods\"\"). You should always haggle and price match your vendors. You can also try going to different vendors and not telling them its for a wedding and see if there really is a price difference. For example, call up a florist and say you need X, Y, and Z for a corporate banquet or for a special event for which you cannot give the details. If you then tell them its actually a wedding, and they blindly raise it without a good justification, move on. That said, they jack up the price because they know most people will says \"\"it's my wedding\"\", \"\"it's once in a lifetime\"\", \"\"it's MY special day\"\", etc.... The same is true about diamonds, their price does not reflect the actual supply and demand ratio, just the perception that has been created. However, as mentioned in some of the comments above, the service provided at a wedding may be different or more involved than just a normal dinner The more important issue is ensuring there are no back fees, no hidden fees, and you have well written, well reviewed contracts. For example, we know a couple whose caterer added a mandatory 20% gratuity, regardless of the service which was provided. Most venues or restaurants will not be making the bar a lose-leader, but they will charge for other things. You can also save money by buying used or looking on ebay for prices closer to wholesale for the product. I think a good analogy to this is the Recent Time Magazine article on the price of healthcare - it costs a lot because its a small market and its harder to navigate, and most are not experienced shoppers in the area or don't have control over the individual item costs.\""
},
{
"docid": "109394",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Apparently, only in America do people understand the difference between positive and negative rights. A negative right requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. These are \"\"natural\"\" rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, etc. The Constitution is full of negative rights that are \"\"endowed by the Creator,\"\" i.e the government does not grant them to you, but rather, the government cannot strip them from you because you already have them. Positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service, such as healthcare. These rights always require government coercion, such as forced taxation, to implement. They also don't exist without that government coercion. These rights are granted by government (and can be taken away by government as well). Americans are much more supportive of negative rights. True freedom means freedom from government coercion. Thus, calls for healthcare as a \"\"right\"\" are rejected by huge numbers of Americans. Healthcare is not a right in the same sense that freedom of speech is, because it is not a negative right.\""
},
{
"docid": "315516",
"title": "",
"text": "Been digging through all the EU VAT directives and have called HMRC as well.. There does not seem to be any lower threshhold for charging VAT into the EU. If you sell £10 of goods/services you have to charge VAT and file a VAT return. Your options are: 1) Register for MOSS and file a single VAT return in your home country for all countries. In the UK this means that you also have to be VAT registered and have to charge VAT locally as well - even if you are below the UK threshold. 2) Register and file a VAT return in every EU country you sell into. You also have to apply the correct VAT rate for each country (typically 15% to 27%), and you have to keep at least two pieces of evidence for the customer location. eg. billing address, IP address, etc."
},
{
"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."
}
] |
3875 | Does freedom to provide services allow me contracting in Germany without paying taxes there (but in my home EU country)? | [
{
"docid": "249859",
"title": "",
"text": "You're free to provide services, but if you stay in one country for more than half a year - you're generally considered to be its resident for tax purposes. Germany is no exception to the rule, in fact - this is true to almost any country in the world. If you provide the services from Poland, and never set foot in Germany - they won't say a word."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "417054",
"title": "",
"text": "What I am saying is that social contract, despite the words chosen and combined in order to label the concept, is not a literal contract or agreement. How is it not common sense that individuals have to make some sacrifices for the good of their community/state/republic? If you think that a nation can function on the level that US does without majority of its citizens paying their taxes, I don't know what alternative you are offering for paying the costs of running a country."
},
{
"docid": "415047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Bernie: I could probably live with a percent increase also. Right now, it falls under capital gains, which is 15% for most people, and I think slides up to 20% at the highest brackets. I could live with a couple more percent points added onto it. I am a civilian now, and left the military with no retirement pension. As an owner of a company, I have to build my own retirement just like most civilians nowadays. I am counting on some portion of that retirement to be funded by stock/mutual fund/dividends interest growth. While I would alter my plans slightly if it went from 15% to 20%, I wouldn't have to change my plans. > You are right, there does need to be an enforcement agency, however, I do not believe it has to be government. You are right, it doesn't *have* to be government... Call it whatever you want, but guess what those people who have to *deal* with that enforcement agency are going to call it.... *government*... (or \"\"big brother\"\" or the \"\"cops\"\" or whatever). The point being, at the end of a day doesn't it equate to the same thing? How will this enforcement agency get paid? Are they going to sell tickets? Are they going to make a product or service *outside of enforcement*? Probably not, otherwise they are going to gain a reputation for having a conflict of interest and always have the suspicion of corruption hanging over them. So, then we are back to some form of \"\"tax\"\" on the market in order to pay for enforcement.... (And what do we call that ladies and gentlemen?.... A *government*!) > Kansas You dug down into the specifics, which I appreciate. Most people just go: he didn't reduce taxes and spending *enough* and *that* is why it failed. And that is why they are now raising taxes to pay for gaping deficits. Okay, so lets say you are correct about Kansas. Lets do some apples to apples comparisons. Most people say - okay, lets compare Texas and California - our two biggest GDP states. I am fine with that, even though their GDP comes from *very* different sources. CA is a technology state, while TX is an oil state. They both have a little bit of farming on top of that. CA has one of the highest and strictest tax policies of any state in the union. TX is known for being a *business friendly* state and a *tax rebel* (although they surely don't have a zero tax policy, not having an income tax is nice while they have one of the highest real estate taxes of any state). CA currently has a [GDP growth rate of 3%](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/19/jerry-brown/are-jobs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/), and has a job growth rate that exceeds the national average. TX is has fallen below the national average on both aspects, mostly because of the oversupply of oil on the global market. And of course TX was one of the top states while oil was up, but still was CA. The point being is that their *very* different tax policies did not make or break their positions. And many would argue that tax policy can help GDP when it builds stability and infrastructure (while states like KS seem to show the opposite to be true). Lets do another comparison, and see if we can get even more apples to apples. Lets find a couple of states the sit right next to each other, have very similar economies and demographics, but very different views on taxes and infrastructure. How about: WI and MN, KS and MI, NH, and ME, and OR and ID. Conservative with very lenient tax policy, an emphasis on freedom and reduced government: WI, KS, ME, and ID. Liberal states with emphasis on infrastructure, and social services: MN, NH, OR, MI. In all of the above examples, the liberal states exceeded the conservative states in job growth, and GDP growth. This doesn't mean the liberal state exceeded the national average - in the KS/MI and MN/WI examples, both states lagged the national average. However, in both examples the liberal state faired better. People could argue it is in-spite of the increased taxes, or they could try to find minute differences in the economies. Those states are pretty close, and yet the liberal states exceeded the conservative states. This can be seen on a global scale as well. It is almost as if people need a safety network, and stability before they are able to produce. It is hard to concentrate on innovation and invention while you are worried about being able to buy groceries, pay for that big surgery, or make sure your kids go to a good school. They have even seen this play out in commercial markets. [Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) is one of the most successful freeware programs in the world - despite the fact that it pays its \"\"employees\"\" absolutely nothing. When they interviewed the participants, they found that the one common thread was basic needs. As long as their basic needs were being met, the most important thing to them was that they were part of something bigger and were contributing to society. > My high school spent tens of thousands of dollars on Macbook Pros and iPads the same year they started having these \"\"big\"\" paper shortages. I agree - straight dollars do not equate to good education. After all, we pay more per student that most countries, yet [lag many western nations](https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/highschool-08.html). I want you to notice something - every one of those nations at the top of the list has a strong *nationalized* school system. Not one of them has a privatized school system as the basis of their education program. Matter of fact, if you look at many of today's most prominent inventions - they have their foundation in government led R&D. Commercial does a great job expanding on government built foundations. Like Elon Musk has done with the space program. It is almost as if people want government, and want it to provide the foundation so that they feel safe building onto that foundation.\""
},
{
"docid": "571735",
"title": "",
"text": "Afternoon /u/snappykr22! > It is not right to force people to buy any product or service. Period. I think I understand why you feel this way but I disagree. Taxation is forcing someone to purchase products and services provided by the government that he may or may not want. It is not ideal but just as a family would fall apart without demands on it's members, a country will do the same. Government can not exist if your position is applied across the board and we are all better off with government. > This mandate is just one of the terrible things about Obamacare. Nobody likes the mandate just like nobody likes taxes but both are required to keep their systems functioning. Pointing to the mandate as bad isn't going to change my mind on Obamacare any more than pointing to taxes is going to convince me to support dissolving government. You will need to show me that what we get for the mandate isn't worthwhile. > Obama effectively gave people the option to get insurance AFTER they get sick without consequence of higher prices. Obama did NOT give people this option. This is precisely the scenario the Obamacare mandate prevented because you were forced to get insurance before you got sick. By saying he won't enforce the mandate President Trump IS giving people this option and you are absolutely correct on how that will play out. > I am not a bad person. I'm not greedy, either. Of course not. You put a lot of time into your answer just to explain your position to some guy on the Internet. I appreciate that. > Running water in your home. Central air. Life-saving surgery/drugs and physical therapy. Being able to turn on and off electricity with a switch. Make a pot of coffee right at your kitchen counter top. *snip* The government did not of this. People did. Government is instrumental in providing **ALL** of this. Think about it... > Running water in your home. That is water you and your state have a right to collect because of agreements handled by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. It was collected and stored in public reservoirs, which exist because of dams built by public works projects. Your municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage. > Central air. [People used to install air conditioners with CFCs which are responsible for the Antarctic hole in the ozone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion). It wasn't until the EPA called attention to the problem and the government outlawed the refrigerant in the 80's that things changed. In addition refrigeration is an energy-heavy technology but the energy grid doesn't have to do rolling blackouts because the government mandates minimum insulation on homes and efficiency standards. > Life-saving surgery/drugs and physical therapy. [The US governments funds a little less than half the drug research](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50). We also know these items improve peoples lives because the FDA and NIH have demanded clinical trials to prove new treatments are safe and effective. Don't forget that government institutions like the HHS and CDC have pushed vaccinations and outbreak responses to effectively eradicate nasty diseases like smallpox, polio, and malaria. > Being able to turn on and off electricity with a switch. Electricity has been recognized as a [public good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good) and those companies are strongly regulated. The transmission lines that bring power to your house are required to be open so one power company does not have a monopoly on supplying your house power. Are air is no longer choked with soot because of the EPA and the DOE monitors and regulates nuclear waste. > Make a pot of coffee right at your kitchen counter top. Coffee is imported from South American or African countries thanks to US trade agreements and is safe because of the FDA. Your coffee maker was probably made in China but doesn't burn your house down because the manufacturer is required to follow regulations from the CPSC and if there is a problem you can do something about it thanks to the FTC and/or court system. > And if the government can get the hell out of our way, we can continue to improve the quality of life like we have been for hundreds of years now in this country. The quality of life in the US has been improving in the US for hundreds of years BECAUSE OF government. A capitalistic market is important too but free market principles exist today in Somalia but their lives still suck. The reason is that they are missing a strong central government to fill in the gaps, keep the playing field somewhat fair, and, yes, make a few demands of its citizens in exchange. I hope you're having a great weekend."
},
{
"docid": "58696",
"title": "",
"text": "Every guess you made is incorrect I'm living fairly well for a 25 year old with a kid on the way. Have my own house my own car 0 debt and work my ass off to keep it that way. I grew up in a poor family and know how to work hard for what I want and believe taxation to be theft and don't like the idea of theft. Also a housing bubble popping can and will ruin an economy ie 2008. Please do yourself and the world a favor and stop looking at everything from your statist liberal glass. Go take a look at switzerland and their economy and tell me how well they are doing with the 4th freest market in the world and more personal freedom than any other European country. No I don't think liberal policies are holding me back I think government holds me back, all of it. This country was founded on freedom and had the smallest government in world history that has now become the largest in world history. Lastly I don't know much about the Kansas situation but what I do know from the limited exposure to the situation is that these tax cuts were followed by spending increases (however minimal) every year. You can't cut revenue and increase spending and expect good things to happen because they dont."
},
{
"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": "197782",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\""
},
{
"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": "248658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yeah, in high school my AP Government/Honors Gifted Economics teacher was all \"\"Economics? Economics is worthless now, study for your AP test.\"\" It'd be cool if someone took all of these economic unions and compared them. But as it stands right now, it seems that in the EU the only country with a head on its shoulders, economically, is Germany.\""
},
{
"docid": "77488",
"title": "",
"text": "If the firm treats you as an employee then they are treated as having a place of business in the UK and therefore are obliged to operate PAYE on your behalf - this rule has applied to EU States since 2010 and the non-EU EEA members, including Switzerland, since 2012. If you are not an employee then your main options are: An umbrella company would basically bill the client on your behalf and pay you net of taxes and NI. You potentially take home a bit less than you would being 100% independent but it's a lot less hassle and potentially makes sense for a small contract."
},
{
"docid": "151903",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even without the $2 fee, I'm jumping ship and switching to Virgin Mobile. Here's my breakdown: Verizon 400 minutes + 100 texts (IIRC), no data, $45 before fees Virgin 300 minutes + unlimited 3G data & text: $35 with purchase of $200+ smartphone. (and virgin uses Sprint for 3G) I'll be informing Verizon that their separate fee hike of $0.15 which, to my knowledge, is still in the works, is what's known legally as a \"\"material averse effect\"\" and allows me to opt out of the contract without paying a cancellation fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "299752",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. You do have to pay taxes in the UK as well but it depends on how much you have already been taxed in the US. http://taxaid.org.uk/situations/migrant-workernew-to-the-uk/income-from-abroad-arising-basis-vs-remittance-basis Say, you have to pay 20% tax in the UK for your earnings here. You ARE required to pay the same percentage on your foreign income as well. Now, if your \"\"home\"\" country already taxed you at 10% (for the sake of example), then you only need to pay the \"\"remaining\"\" 10% in the UK. However, the tax law in the UK does allow you to choose between \"\"arising\"\" basis and \"\"remittance\"\" basis on your income from the country you are domiciled in. What I have explained above is based on when income \"\"arises.\"\" But the laws are complicated, and you are almost always better off by paying it on \"\"arising\"\" basis.\""
},
{
"docid": "229061",
"title": "",
"text": "> If a business operates in the US, makes money here, has physical infrastructure and employees here, and utilizes our infrastructure I don't see how you can say that the US doesn't deserve any of that. For fuck's sake, this isn't rocket science. Taxes made on profits from goods and services sold in the U.S. are ALREADY taxed in the U.S. We are talking about profits from GE making engines in Germany and selling to the EU."
},
{
"docid": "399409",
"title": "",
"text": "We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one."
},
{
"docid": "192079",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are quite some options, but without additional information, I can only provide examples. Last year I had the option to buy a house, but I decided against it because in my area it is getting harder and harder every year to sell it at a reasonable price. But if I had bought a house, my mother would have lent me the money, with me paying it back to her over the years on 3% interest. So it would have been some kind of a private loan. But my mom would never have taken ownership of the house, since it was not her intention to own it in any way. (Does your dad intend to own the house and rent it to you? If yes, and if you are comfortable with renting instead of buying, then this is an option.) The second option, the one we discarded because of the additional cost, is that I could have taken a loan, paying 4.5% interest to the bank, which would then pay under 1% to my mom, and keep the rest. Banks always want to make profit, and this profit has to come from somewhere - from the difference between the interest rates. If your dad has 230k on the bank, and you owe 230k to the bank, you are better off if you keep the bank out - at least as long as your dad is comfortable with lending you money, and you are comfortable with owing him money. (my gf would never borough money from her mother, because her mother would always play the \"\"you are in my debt\"\" card - on each and every visit, and whenever she needed help in any way...) So the key is: What does your dad feel comfy with - and what do you feel comfy with. If possible, keep the banks out, but set up a written contract between you and your dad.\""
},
{
"docid": "210536",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simple answer would be - if you want to take Euros from Germany to Spain as cash and deposit them, you're not breaking any laws, there is nothing to declare to customs (you're still in the EU), it is not \"\"income\"\" so there is nothing to tax, and your bank should be able to receive it without issue (no currency conversion after all). It does however come with the risk of loss/theft en route. So it really depends on how comfortable you are walking around with that much on your person. If you don't want to carry that much around and your banks are imposing unreasonable fees, here's something you could investigate further (I have not tested it myself): Transferwise offers a service that lets people send money to foreign accounts (in different currencies) for a small fee, at mid-market rates. However, they also offer a \"\"request money\"\" feature which allows EUR-EUR transfers (and some other same currency transfers). So perhaps you could use this feature to simply request money from yourself. The requester puts in how much they want to receive. Then they send a generated link to the other party. When clicked, that link sets up a transaction for the requested amount, and sometimes a nominal fee (I created a link for a GBP-GBP transfer and it wanted 1 pound extra, but when I did the same for EUR-EUR it didn't want any extra). I assume you would need two Transferwise accounts, though maybe not? And I'm not sure whether doing this is technically allowed in their terms of service, so you should read those to be sure. The advantage, if this works, is that neither bank sees it as a \"\"transfer\"\". Rather, the originating bank makes a payment to Transferwise, and then Transferwise makes a deposit to the receiving account. So I can't imagine either bank would be able to impose their foreign-bank-transfer fees for the transaction. https://transferwise.com/request-money I have used Transferwise for currency conversions, but not the request money feature, maybe other users could chime in if they have used it.\""
},
{
"docid": "594784",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live)."
},
{
"docid": "378060",
"title": "",
"text": "Your answer will need loads of information and clarification, so I will ask you to visit the VAT and have a peruse. 1) Obligation is for you to find out the correct rate of VAT, charge and pay tax accordingly. You can call up the HMRC VAT helpline for help, which they will be happy to oblige. Normally everybody pays VAT every 3 months or you can pay once in a year. 2) Depends on your annual turnover, including VAT. Less than £150000 you join the Flat rate scheme. There are schemes for cultural activities. Might be good to check here on GOV.UK. 3) If you pay VAT in EU countries, you can reclaim VAT in UK. You need to reclaim VAT while filing in your VAT returns. But be careful about your receipts, which can be checked to verify you are not defrauding HMRC. The basic rule is that B2B services are, as the name suggests, supplies from one business to another. And, subject to some exceptions, are treated as made where the customer belongs. No VAT is chargeable on B2B supplies to an overseas customer. But where you make a B2C supply, VAT depends on where your customer is located: 1) if they are outside the EU, you don’t need to charge VAT 2) if they are located in an EU country, then you must charge VAT. Source All in all keep all records of VAT charged and paid to satisfy the taxman. If the rules get complicated, get an accountant to help you out. Don' take chances of interpreting the law yourself, the fines you might pay for wrong interpretation might be a deal breaker."
},
{
"docid": "111048",
"title": "",
"text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest."
},
{
"docid": "499750",
"title": "",
"text": "Not asking for any societal benefits. Just to pay for the services I need and want and not a penny more. If you can't offer a service I want I reserve the right to shop around without leaving my home. Just asking to pay the exact same price as everyone else without the special pricing for some. I already opted out of most of the services your claiming I use by leaving the cities where those things are offered. But you keep arguing to steal from me for things I don't want and that can be provided by other providers."
}
] |
3888 | Why I can't view my debit card pre-authorized amounts? | [
{
"docid": "307083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "546020",
"title": "",
"text": "Some people cannot get bank accounts because they have been seized by a creditor or they're illegal. Some companies don't (or can't) deal with paper checks. Giving them a prepaid debit card and auto depositing it to the card is sometimes simpler or cheaper. Hell, when I was on unemployment the government tried to make me receive the funds on a debit card. It was a major pain just to get the money sent to my bank account."
},
{
"docid": "276733",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't use pre-authorized automatic payment methods because there is no control, and it is impossible to get it back. Once you have authorized a firm to withdraw funds from your account, there is no realistic way to revoke that control, save closing down your bank account entirely and moving to another institution. I once had automatic payments set up for my apartment rent, and then one month they withdrew twice on one day, overdrawing my account; it was very difficult to dispute the charge and get it back. The bank was little help as I had authorized them to withdraw funds; it didn't make any difference that they had done it twice, because I had given them permission to withdraw that amount. The property management company was large and difficult to contact, and at first denied any wrongdoing. tl;dr version: it's more pain than it's worth, and I will never do it again."
},
{
"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": "282934",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As stated in the other answer, debit card payments even contactless ones, do not debit instantly or anywhere near instantly. They can take several days or even longer. However, the fact that the payment was approved would indicate that the contactless device used by the retailer managed to connect to your bank account and could see there were sufficient funds. At this time the payment should also have \"\"reserved\"\" the funds so it will be \"\"pending\"\" as such. Your online banking may not show all types of pending transactions, it may only show Direct Debits for example, if you ring the bank I expect they will be able to see this payment and advise accordingly, out of interest who do you bank with? If you can see your \"\"available\"\" funds you should find that includes this payment having been \"\"reserved\"\" ie you can't use that money, but if it's a small amount you may struggle to spot it. Again, this will vary by bank and how their internet banking system has been implemented. I would expect this payment to debit your account the working day after you made it, or at worst the day after that. In theory with \"\"faster payment\"\" technology it could happened within 2 hours but not all banks implemented that system in the same way so delays can and do occur. If the retailer/merchant banks with the same bank you do, in theory the transaction could be instantaneous, again depending on the bank. Short answer short, the transaction is fine, it won't be void, you just need to wait, probably a day or two. This link has more info, especially useful if you bank with NatWest (as I say the technology is likely to vary by bank to some extent). Your own bank should have their own version of this. http://personal.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/your-visa-debit-card/contactless.html\""
},
{
"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": "9325",
"title": "",
"text": "I generally only carry my debit card and a small amount of cash. On payday most of my money goes into a bills account, so I only have enough in the main account for a few days regular spending. This means if I want to buy anything I need to make a transfer from my bills account. If I really need to I can transfer the money instantly this over the phone or the web, but it cuts down greatly on the impulse purchases as I have to go through a process to get hold of the money. As an aside this approach would probably help if I got mugged or lost the wallet as they wouldn't get much cash or be able to use my card for very long."
},
{
"docid": "289483",
"title": "",
"text": "For many folks these days, not having a credit card is just not practical. Personally, I do quite a bit of shopping online for things not available locally. Cash is not an option in these cases and I don't want to give out my debit card number. So, a strategy is this: use a credit card for a purchase. Then immediately, or within a couple days, pay the credit card with that amount. Sounds simple but it takes a little effort to do it. This strategy gives you the convenience of a credit card and decreases the interest enormously."
},
{
"docid": "132636",
"title": "",
"text": "Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item."
},
{
"docid": "28074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\""
},
{
"docid": "140809",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, this does not sound like a debit situation. Every debit has to be authorized by the entry of a pin code. So, the hotel could not have arbitrarily created a new debit charge. Usually, hotel charges are credit charges. Once they have your credit card number, they can charge anything they want to the credit card. If it is an accidental double charge, you can call the hotel and ask them to refund $100 or whatever the mistake was plus your overdraft fee. In all probability they will refund any double charge, but not agree to refund the fee. You can also contest the charge and do a \"\"chargeback\"\" of the amount which was double charged. You will probably not be able to collect the overdraft fee that you got from the hotel unless you sue them in small claims court, or you luck out and the hotel agrees to refund the fee as well.\""
},
{
"docid": "86752",
"title": "",
"text": "Skimmers are most likely at gas station pumps. If your debit card is compromised you are getting money taken out of your checking account which could cause a cascade of NSF fees. Never use debit card at pump. Clark Howard calls debit cards piece of trash fake visa/mc That is because of all the points mentioned above but the most important fact is back in the 60's when congress was protecting its constituents they made sure that the banks were responsible for fraud and maxed your liability at $50. Debit cards were introduced much later when congress was interested in protecting banks. So you have no protection on your debit card and if they find you negligent with your card they may not replace the stolen funds. I got rid of my debit card and only have an ATM card. So it cannot be used in stores which means you have to know the pin and then you can only get $200 a day."
},
{
"docid": "38720",
"title": "",
"text": "A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.)"
},
{
"docid": "502781",
"title": "",
"text": "My reason for not using direct debit is #4 on Dheer's list. I just don't know where exactly I'm going to have what balance on what day, because I usually don't leave more than $100-$200 on my checking, all my cash is in Savings. I also don't want to direct debit from Savings in order to not break the 6-withdrawals limit accidentally. I use direct debit to my credit card where its available, but most places charge for that and I don't want to pay the extra fee. So, I prefer to pay my bills manually. What I don't understand is the people who pay the credit card bills when the statement arrives. I haven't received a credit card statement in years. Don't they have on-line access? Can't they set reminders there? If so - throw the card away, and get a normal one. Same with mailing checks, by the way. I'm still not even half done with the free checks I got from Washington Mutual 5 years ago. I almost never write checks. All the bills are paid online, whether through bill-pay service or an ACH transfer."
},
{
"docid": "170141",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two fundamentally different reasons merchants will give cash discounts. One is that they will not have to pay interchange fees on cash (or pay much lower fees on no-reward debit cards). Gas stations in my home state of NJ already universally offer different cash and credit prices. Costco will not even take Visa and MasterCard credit cards (debit only) for this reason. The second reason, not often talked about but widely known amongst smaller merchants, is that they can fail to declare the sale (or claim a smaller portion of the sale) to the authorities in order to reduce their tax liability. Obviously the larger stores will not risk their jobs for this, but smaller owner-operated (\"\"mom and pop\"\") stores often will. This applies to both reduced sales tax liability and income tax liability. This used to be more limited per sale (but more widespread overall), since tax authorities would look closely for a mismatch between declared income and spending, but with an ever-larger proportion of customers paying by credit card, merchants can take a bigger chunk of their cash sales off the books without drawing too much suspicion. Both of the above are more applicable to TVs than cars, since (1) car salesmen make substantial money from offering financing and (2) all cars must be registered with the state, so alternative records of sales abound. Also, car prices tend to be at or near the credit limit of most cards, so it is not as common to pay for them in this way.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "548557",
"title": "",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one."
},
{
"docid": "41465",
"title": "",
"text": "I use another solution: debit card with an account kept empty most of the time and another account in the same bank without any card. I keep the money on the second card-less account, and when I want to buy something, I instantly transfer the appropriate amount to the account with the card and pay. That way money is on the account tied to a debit card only for a minute before payment, and normally it is empty - so even if someone would try to fraudulently use my card number - I don't care - the transaction will be rejected. I think its the perfect solution - no fraud possible, and I don't have to worry about possibly having to bother calling my bank and requesting a chargeback, which is stressful and a waste of time and harmful to peace of mind (what if they refuse the chargeback)? I prefer to spend a minute before each transaction to transfer the money between the two accounts, and that time is not a waste, because I use it to reconsider the purchase - which prevents impulse-buying."
},
{
"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": "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.\""
}
] |
3888 | Why I can't view my debit card pre-authorized amounts? | [
{
"docid": "319213",
"title": "",
"text": "No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "504208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If psychologically there is no difference to you between cash and debit (you should test this over a couple of months on yourself and spouse to make sure), then I suggest two debit cards (one for you and spouse) on your main or separate checking account. If you use Mint you can set budgets for each category (envelope) and when a purchase is made Mint will automatically categorize that transaction and deduct that amount from the correct budget. For example: If you have a \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget set at $100 per month and you use the debit at McDonalds, Mint should automatically categorize it as \"\"Fast Food\"\" and deduct the amount from the \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget that you set. If it can't determine a category or gets it wrong, you can just select the proper category. Mint has an iPhone (also Android and Windows phone) app that I find very easy to use. Many people state that they don't have this psychologically difference between spending cash and debit/credit, but I would say that most actually do, especially with small purchases. It doesn't have anything to do with intellect or knowing that you are actually spending money. It has more to do with tangibility, and the physical act of handing over cash. You may not add that soda and candy bar to your purchase if you have visible cash in your wallet that will disappear more quickly. I lived in Germany for 2 years before debit cards were around or common. I'm a sharp guy and even though I knew that I paid $100 for the 152 DM, it still kind of felt like spending Monopoly money, especially considering that in the US we are used to coins normally being 25 cents or less and in Germany coins are up to 10 DM (almost $10) and are used more frequently than paper.\""
},
{
"docid": "477853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would think it extremely unlikely that an issuer would cancel your card for having an ADB of approximately zero. The issuer charges the vendor that accepts a card a percentage of the transaction (usually up to ~3%, AMEX is generally higher) - so they are making money even if you carry no balance on your card (the specific language for various vendor-side (acceptor) credit card agreements boils down to \"\"we are essentially giving you, the vendor, a short-term loan and you will pay us for it). This why you see credit-card minimum purchase amounts at places like hot-dog stands - they're getting nailed on the percentage. This is also why, when given the choice between \"\"Debit or Credit\"\" for a particular card, I choose where to put the hit on the company I like less - the retailer or the bank.\""
},
{
"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": "456098",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The credit card may have advantages in at least two cases: In some instances (at least in the US), a merchant will put a \"\"hold\"\" on a credit card without charging it. This happens a lot at hotels, for example, which use the hold as collateral against damages and incidental charges. On a credit card this temporarily reduces your credit limit but never appears on your bill. I've never tried to do it on a debit card, but my understanding is that they either reject the debit card for this purpose or they actually make the withdrawal and then issue a refund later. You'll actually need to account for this in your cash flow on the debit card but not on the credit card. If you get a fraudulent charge on your credit card, it impacts that account until you detect it and go through the fraud resolution process. On a debit card, the fraudulent charge may ripple through the rest of your life. The rent payment that you made by electronic transfer or (in the US) by check, for example, is now rejected because your bank account is short by the amount of the fraud even if you didn't use the debit card to pay it. Eventually this will probably get sorted out, but it has potential to create a bigger mess than is necessary. Personally, I never use my debit card. I consider it too risky with no apparent benefit.\""
},
{
"docid": "394928",
"title": "",
"text": "This depends on if you're talking Secured credit card, or prepaid debit card. There is no separate category for secured credit cards in the IIN list; however, it is possible some of them are classified as debit cards (despite not being debit cards). You may want to check with the issuer to verify this (and you can check the IIN, or the first 6 digits of the card number, in the list I link to above to verify). However, prepaid debit cards are debit cards, and are less likely to be accepted for travel, rental car, hotel, etc. types of charges (where a hold, similar to a deposit, is charged to the account). This is one of the major differences between a prepaid card, such as the kind you top up at the grocer, and a secured credit card, where you deposit some money but separately pay back the amount you charge on the card (as a regular card). Secured cards are classified as credit cards, while prepaid cards are debit cards. As mhoran notes, it's possible your credit limit could be too low to allow a hotel, airline, or rental agency to allow a transaction, but otherwise it should be fine."
},
{
"docid": "444748",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I answered a similar question, How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score?, in which I show a graph of how utilization impacts your score. In another answer to Should I keep a credit card open to maintain my credit score?, I discuss the makeup of your score. From your own view at Credit Karma, you can see that age of accounts will help your score, so now is the time to get the right cards and stay with them. My background is technology (electrical engineer) and MBA with a concentration in finance. I'm not a Psychology major. If one is undisciplined, credit can destroy them. If one is disciplined, and pays in full each month, credit is a tool. The quoting of billionaires is a bit disingenuous. I've seen people get turned away at hotels for lack of a credit card. $1000 in cash would not get them into a $200/night room. Yes, a debit card can be used, but the rental car and hotel \"\"reserve\"\" a large amount on the card, so if you don't have a high balance, you may be out of town and out of luck. I'll quote another oft-quoted guru: \"\"no one gets rich on credit card rewards.\"\" No, but I'm on track to pay for my 13 year old's last semester in college with the rewards from a card that goes right into her account. It will be great to make that withdrawal and not need to take the funds from anywhere else. The card has no fee, and I've not paid them a dime in interest. By the way, with 1-20% utilization ideal, you want your total available credit to be 5X the highest monthly balance you'd every hit. Last - when you have a choice between 2% cash reward, and the cash discount Kevin manages, take the discount, obviously.\""
},
{
"docid": "185434",
"title": "",
"text": "We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare."
},
{
"docid": "239298",
"title": "",
"text": "They seem to agree in part with the opinion author on the suggested fix. David Leonhardt(NYT Opinion Author) wrote: > Different policies could produce a different outcome. My list would start with a tax code that does less to favor the affluent, a better-functioning education system, more bargaining power for workers and less tolerance for corporate consolidation Whereas they wrote: >Third, despite the rise in means-tested benefits—including Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit, created in 1975 and expanded in 1986 and the early 1990s—government redistribution has not enhanced income growth for low- and moderate income working-age Americans over the last three decades. There are clear limits to what taxes and transfers can achieve in the face of such massive changes in the pre-tax distribution of income like those that have occurred since 1980. In our view, the main conclusion is that the policy discussion should focus on how to equalize the distribution of primary assets, including human capital, financial capital, and bargaining power, rather than merely ex-post redistribution"
},
{
"docid": "573523",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\""
},
{
"docid": "350800",
"title": "",
"text": "At every moving/yard/garage sale I have ever seen only cash is accepted. While the use of electronic payments is growing the big problem is that it is hard to verify the exchange at the time the goods are changing hands. Unless you have a card reader attached to your phone, you can't use a credit or debit card. Unless you can verify that they did transfer the money electronically why would you let them walk away with your stuff? If you knew them you could accept a check, but there are risks with the checks bouncing."
},
{
"docid": "557870",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\""
},
{
"docid": "141579",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\""
},
{
"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": "38720",
"title": "",
"text": "A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.)"
},
{
"docid": "273944",
"title": "",
"text": "I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)"
},
{
"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": "541144",
"title": "",
"text": "If you paid by debit/credit card, there is an expiration period to the authorization the seller is given by the merchant processor, although that timeframe is dictated by the credit card company/bank, merchant processor, and sometimes by state law. That being said, the other posters are correct that technically, once you authorize charge, the seller has the right to expect fulfillment of the agreement, that you would pay them X dollars for Y product."
},
{
"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": "182255",
"title": "",
"text": "\"All the EMV contactless payment cards (paypass, expresspay, paywave etc) will sometimes 'request to go online' when making a transaction, which translates into asking for a PIN. The info you received with the card should have included something about this. For example, the Mastercard information about PayPass includes the note \"\"Contactless\"\" payments are tapped, not swiped. It's simple. [...] † there may be some instances when you are asked to enter your PIN number for security reasons or for purchases above a certain amount. You're not doing anything wrong; there's nothing wrong with the readers or your card; this is a standard feature of contactless. If you're asking \"\"why did my issuer's risk model instruct my card to go online for these particular transactions?\"\", well, we can't answer that, and your issuer probably won't, 'for security reasons'. Also, I've just seen that you say \"\"I have never paid using it before\"\" - I believe ALL contactless cards will require a successful PIN transaction before any contactless transaction can succeed - this is to stop someone who's intercepted your card in the mail from being able to spend your money...\""
}
] |
3888 | Why I can't view my debit card pre-authorized amounts? | [
{
"docid": "239632",
"title": "",
"text": "The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "490955",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\""
},
{
"docid": "477853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would think it extremely unlikely that an issuer would cancel your card for having an ADB of approximately zero. The issuer charges the vendor that accepts a card a percentage of the transaction (usually up to ~3%, AMEX is generally higher) - so they are making money even if you carry no balance on your card (the specific language for various vendor-side (acceptor) credit card agreements boils down to \"\"we are essentially giving you, the vendor, a short-term loan and you will pay us for it). This why you see credit-card minimum purchase amounts at places like hot-dog stands - they're getting nailed on the percentage. This is also why, when given the choice between \"\"Debit or Credit\"\" for a particular card, I choose where to put the hit on the company I like less - the retailer or the bank.\""
},
{
"docid": "86752",
"title": "",
"text": "Skimmers are most likely at gas station pumps. If your debit card is compromised you are getting money taken out of your checking account which could cause a cascade of NSF fees. Never use debit card at pump. Clark Howard calls debit cards piece of trash fake visa/mc That is because of all the points mentioned above but the most important fact is back in the 60's when congress was protecting its constituents they made sure that the banks were responsible for fraud and maxed your liability at $50. Debit cards were introduced much later when congress was interested in protecting banks. So you have no protection on your debit card and if they find you negligent with your card they may not replace the stolen funds. I got rid of my debit card and only have an ATM card. So it cannot be used in stores which means you have to know the pin and then you can only get $200 a day."
},
{
"docid": "394928",
"title": "",
"text": "This depends on if you're talking Secured credit card, or prepaid debit card. There is no separate category for secured credit cards in the IIN list; however, it is possible some of them are classified as debit cards (despite not being debit cards). You may want to check with the issuer to verify this (and you can check the IIN, or the first 6 digits of the card number, in the list I link to above to verify). However, prepaid debit cards are debit cards, and are less likely to be accepted for travel, rental car, hotel, etc. types of charges (where a hold, similar to a deposit, is charged to the account). This is one of the major differences between a prepaid card, such as the kind you top up at the grocer, and a secured credit card, where you deposit some money but separately pay back the amount you charge on the card (as a regular card). Secured cards are classified as credit cards, while prepaid cards are debit cards. As mhoran notes, it's possible your credit limit could be too low to allow a hotel, airline, or rental agency to allow a transaction, but otherwise it should be fine."
},
{
"docid": "309279",
"title": "",
"text": "From my experience using PayPal for selling products on eBay (and for the last two, experiences of a friend)... Can paypal get money from my Bank Account without my authorization. This is assuming they have transferred the funds to me. They can't pull money from your bank account without your authorization. They will, however, take the money from your PayPal account if it's still there, or leave you with a negative balance if you've already withdrawn. They will do this as soon as there is a claim against you and will only release the funds if the investigation ends in your favor. Any money received would first be used to satisfy the negative balance. What actions can paypal takes against me if charge back amount is very high and I don't agree / pay them. They will send it to a collections agency. Is there any case it is going to effect my bank account, i.e. is there any chance paypal can block my bank account in India. They will block you from using PayPal. If you try to sign up again with a different bank account or credit card and they recognize you as the account holder, they will block that account as well."
},
{
"docid": "434509",
"title": "",
"text": "When debit cards were first made available one of the advertised strengths was that if you never wrote a check,and always used a debit card, you could never be overdrawn. They money would be instantly withdrawn from the account and the balance would always reflect perfectly the amount of money in the account. Of course some saw the loss of float as a weakness, but for others this instantaneous aspect was what they needed. If only that were true. I have seen debit card transactions take a couple of days to appear. I have seen a $1 hold for gas not be removed and the real amount withdrawn for 2 or 3 days. Horror stories about having a $3 coffee end up costing $30 because of overdraft fees can only occur if the transactions aren't instant. The contactless feature doesn't make the time delay any shorter. The delay for an individual transaction, assuming there are no unusual network problems, still depend on the vendor policies, the card network policies, and the bank policies. But from the viewpoint of the cashier the transaction has been completes and the customer can leave with their coffee. From the viewpoint of the bank account it may still be waiting,"
},
{
"docid": "273944",
"title": "",
"text": "I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)"
},
{
"docid": "38720",
"title": "",
"text": "A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.)"
},
{
"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": "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": "314352",
"title": "",
"text": "If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable."
},
{
"docid": "201800",
"title": "",
"text": "This is obviously hearsay because I can't remember the sources at all, but I recall hearing that at that company's chains, they also would take the credit card fee out of the worker's tips. so if you used a card and there's a 2.5% fee, they'd take that amount out of your waiter's tips. Isn't that nice? Random citations that make it less hearsay: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/09/some_restaurant_owners_say_its.html http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/10/parasole_restaurants_dipping_into_tip_jar_taking_2_of_wait_staffs_credit_card_tips.php http://www.tip20.com/restaurant-chain-drops-plan-taking-credit-card-fees-out-of-tips/38 >The tip plan, first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, called for passing along part of the debit and credit card fees — about 3 percent of tips on average. That would have meant a waiter would collect $19.40 out of a $20 tip. http://www.care2.com/causes/restaurant-chain-takes-banking-fees.html http://restaurants.about.com/b/2008/01/29/employer-takes-servers-tip-money-to-pay-for-credit-card-fees.htm"
},
{
"docid": "573523",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\""
},
{
"docid": "188028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "140809",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, this does not sound like a debit situation. Every debit has to be authorized by the entry of a pin code. So, the hotel could not have arbitrarily created a new debit charge. Usually, hotel charges are credit charges. Once they have your credit card number, they can charge anything they want to the credit card. If it is an accidental double charge, you can call the hotel and ask them to refund $100 or whatever the mistake was plus your overdraft fee. In all probability they will refund any double charge, but not agree to refund the fee. You can also contest the charge and do a \"\"chargeback\"\" of the amount which was double charged. You will probably not be able to collect the overdraft fee that you got from the hotel unless you sue them in small claims court, or you luck out and the hotel agrees to refund the fee as well.\""
},
{
"docid": "307083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\""
},
{
"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": "13034",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would I ever choose to open a savings account? This is slightly broad and opinion based. If the interest rates are same and other aspects are same [or same to you ... for example savings account allows say 6 debits per month and you only need 4, then its same]. Unless one compares the specifics one can't decide. A checking account may have fees, at times waived if there is direct deposit set-up. It maybe more easy to get phone banking or other aspects. Quite a few items were initially possible with only checking account, get a check book, get a debit card [not just ATM card], etc. These days there are multiple flavours of products that bank is lunching which blur out the lines, hence traditional comparison will not do justice."
},
{
"docid": "344244",
"title": "",
"text": "I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him."
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "404352",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd prefer having it (more or less) fluent at any time, if possible... And the Swiss National Bank (SNB) will do their darndest to make this a costly option. That's exactly the point of negative interest rates. They don't want to help you saving money. So you will have to choose what to give up: liquidity, or profitability. But for now, you still have alternatives. The way you described it one could think that all banks will soon start to charge all their clients. That's just a distortion of facts. If you are happy with a (close to) 0 income, you might consider opening multiple bank accounts. Many banks charge the negative interest only from certain thresholds (i.e. CHF 100k). Since you're clearly a Swiss resident, that's easy to do for you. If you don't want to give up making an income, then you have to sacrifice liquidity. There simply aren't any short term (less than 2-3 years) instruments in Swiss Franc that are both safe and yielding a positive income. Which means that you will have to take much more risk then you had with a savings account. Ask your advisor for an investment proposal, but also consider bank independent advisors."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "264976",
"title": "",
"text": "redethmoid, excellent questions and I appreciate that. The fact is that we do need employees in the workforce in all sectors, blue collar/white collar. The problem is the shift in the economy and how companies are responding to it. The corp execs only look at the bottom line especially when they are a public company(they have to impress wall street as their first priority). So what happens when profits and growth dip? They immediately start looking for ways to cut the budget and it's usually by firing/lay offs and/or offshore outsourcing. It's happening daily unfortunately. If you live in the U.S., there's no reason to be living in poverty. People are dying to get in this country because of the freedom and opportunities we have. It's all about mindset and how you view the world. Here's my advice. I don't know you or your background but I can feel the frustration and where your mindset is. First, remove the negative self talk from your language. Saying that you're broke and have no money will force the universe to leave you in that state. Start reading books on how to improve yourself first. Change starts with us, not outside forces. This is real shit my friend, not just some hype talk. Next, if you need a rat race job to make ends meet, then do it even if you have a college degree. Drop the ego and do what you gotta do. Find something that inspires you and you love to do and figure out how to make cash doing it. There are so many options out there, you just have to be willing to find them and open up your mind. I'll leave you with that for now. If you'd like to connect on social media and learn more about this topic, let me know and I'll give you my details. Have an awesome day! William"
},
{
"docid": "31142",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Despite having a math degree, I basically only use basic algebra/probability/calculus on a day to day basis as my career has gone a different direction away from the modelling/quanty stuff. Some fun reading: * The SABR Model - [SABR/LIBOR Model](http://www.amazon.com/SABR-LIBOR-Market-Model-Interest-Rate/dp/0470740051) * Shevre's Stochastic Calculus for Finance - [Book 1](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Binomial-Textbooks/dp/0387249680/) & [Book 2](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Continuous-Time-Textbooks/dp/144192311X/) One of the big 'hard' problems is calibrating a swap curve w/ what's known as the 3s6s Basis. As a number of true quants have said to me it is a \"\"non-trivial problem\"\". Its basically trying to match two curves with different compounding over a number of different knot points. SABR Model, listed above, is all about calibrating and figuring out how the current rate enviroment is behaving, is it normal or lognormal? What is the blend between the two, how do you know when you are in a different environment etc. Can rates go negative?\""
},
{
"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": "482077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "50509",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well what you said about money is the reason people say \"\"things are only worth, what people are willing to pay for them\"\". There is plenty of economic reasons to for instance conserve coastlines and the environment because deforestation, and coral destruction have negative externalities associated with that have to paid out in the future by who ever suffers from those externalities. However there isn't a market for eco-bonds or a way to value that landmass effectively which is a real issue for ecological conservation. There are people trying to do what and there is an interesting article this week in The New Scientist about such nexus between ecology and economics but while there is clear value somewhere assigning it a price only works if people are willing to buy or invest in it. Its quite sad how many of the critics of modern banking don't really appreciate what they do and what finance does (or more commonly confusion arises about what finance even is, let alone what it does).\""
},
{
"docid": "565233",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the issues you have listed will definitely be some of the larger ones over the next few months even. In relation to interest rates though I think inflation/deflation will aslo start to become an increasinly debated topic, especially if they decide on more QE. Over the next few months into the election I expect to see a flight to quality from the big money and then from retail investors (aren't we already seeing this?). This would bear negative for most stock averages and indexs and positive for \"\"safe\"\" assets such as gold, treasuries, what else? In my opinion the industry that stands to take the biggest losses are the financials, particulary the TBTF banks. This will be a large issue in the election and there is really no way they can walk away from the Europe situation unharmed. In the event of a war (Israel/Iran I assume you mean), I would imagine oil would come up from the relative low it is at now. This would then increase the appeal of Nat Gas which I don't think can stay at the price level it is at now. tl;dr - bearish for the stock markets, bullish on safe assets as doubt in the system increases significantly\""
},
{
"docid": "362730",
"title": "",
"text": "Because they believe that negative interest rates will force people to push capital around, and promote investment to avoid the negative interest rates associated with having your cash sitting in an account. Most likely they will be banning cash within the next 10 years anyway which will prevent you from being able to keep it yourself. You will either need to: or"
},
{
"docid": "416188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\""
},
{
"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": "47373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\""
},
{
"docid": "52942",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is determine how much equity is in the car (positive or negative). Then for your car payments has that been paid out of money that has already been split or is it from a pool that is still to be slit. If the later, then it is irrelevant to this discussion since it was from a joint pool. If the money has already been split then adjust her half of the equity in the car by what you have been paying an make her that offer for her half of the car. I recommend showing her the calculations so as to explain how you came with what she is owed and then let her make a counter offer."
},
{
"docid": "499392",
"title": "",
"text": "Got some questions related to banks and cash, specifically required reserve ratio and capital requirements. The way i understand it is, a bank is required to hold a percentage of money it has loaned to other people (required reserve ratio). Example: If the rrr is 10%; i give the bank 100k, because it is only required to hold 10% (10k) it loans 90k to my neighbour, neighbour buys a car from the dealership, the dealership banks the 90k. now the bank can loan 81k of the dealerships 90k. The bank loans to businessman who buys land worth 81k, land owner banks the 81k. So the bank received 100k from me to hold and protect, loaned 90k to bob,recieved 90k from dealership,loaned 81k to businessman, recieved 81k from land owner. 100k+90k+81k = 271k bank over time will receive another 90k from bob, and 81k from business man + interest. This all assumes there is 1 bank, and all these people put there money in the bank not keeping cash. In my native country we have no required reserve ratio, we have a capital requirement. On our central bank website it states a total capital ratio of 8%. A capital ratio is equity + (profit-money given to shareholders) / risk weighted assets. Question, how do you determine equity, profit, and risk weighted assets for a bank? is equity the cash the bank has, profit the money from fees+interest, and risk weighted assets how much money the bank has in loans?"
},
{
"docid": "545491",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\""
},
{
"docid": "83230",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees."
},
{
"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": "98920",
"title": "",
"text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return."
},
{
"docid": "203926",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return."
},
{
"docid": "508706",
"title": "",
"text": "There is very little effect whatsoever of having a joint bank account--positive or negative. Positive effects: It would be very easy to send your mother money...she can just take it out of the account. If you passed away she could get the money without having to use the legal system (or vice versa). This latter effect is why I have a bunch of joint accounts with my wife...if either of us died I wouldn't want getting access to our money to be an additional hassle. Negative effects: She is able to access money in that account without your consen, which you have pointed out is not going to happen. The case I'm thinking of would be something like a tax lien against her. A government agency might choose to pull money out of that joint account. That would be a downside for you. If we were discussing credit cards, a loan, or a line of credit, there would be a number of legal and credit-rating effects from joint ownership. Not so much with checking accounts."
},
{
"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.)\""
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "200690",
"title": "",
"text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "438403",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul. > He noted that &quot;The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone.&quot; He added that he hoped future conditions might allow &quot;Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold&quot; on interest rates. > The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "281051",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which, if someone has been out of work for a while, may well be the unemployed one. After all rescuing someone from despair is a step towards nurturing loyalty. For those who struggle with answering questions about why you have been unemployed for 2 years, people do like underdogs they can believe in. Nothing wrong with saying this is my dream job and you should pick me over others because I need it more and will fight harder to meet my goals for an employer that \"\"took a chance\"\" on me.\""
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"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": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"docid": "306130",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason for these low interests is that the Japanese central bank is giving away money at negative interests to banks. Yes, negative. So, short of opening your own bank, you'll have to either choose less liquid investments or more risky ones. Get Japanese government bonds. Not a great interest, band not that liquid, but for a 5 years bond you'll do better than the bank can. Get Japanese corporate bonds. Still not great, and a bit more risky, it's better than nothing. Get a Japanese mutual fund. I can't recommend any though. Buy Japanese stock. Many Japanese stock have interesting kickbacks. For example if you buy enough stock of Book-Off you'll get some free books every month. it's risky though because I believe the next NIKKEI index crash is imminent."
},
{
"docid": "416188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\""
},
{
"docid": "190225",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you."
},
{
"docid": "456771",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card."
},
{
"docid": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "235484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000 less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage. If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes. If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well. When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down. When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years. A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting. The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners.\""
},
{
"docid": "360491",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you. I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit. If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk. We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it. It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other. You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks. If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question: a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost. Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy. When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo. And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better."
},
{
"docid": "257633",
"title": "",
"text": "This is just a guess but I would imagine that it has to do with risk. The deposits in Banks are usually as safe as government bonds (broad oversimplification) as: The US government is considered the most trustworthy - even in unlikely event of being close to default it would be rescued by FED (so it can just print the money). So the banks at the same time have very low competition regarding government bonds and the investments they can do have relatively low ROI so they cannot offer much more competitive rates. On the other hand Ukrainian bonds have current rating Caa3/CCC-/CCC - i.e. the Goverment is judged to be likely to default (as you pointed out there is war going on) and in result the government bonds are considered highly speculative. Therefore to attract foreign investors they need to have high interest rating. Similarly the CDs at the banks can be considered at the risk of being lost so to prevent flight of capital overseas (or people keeping USD in cash form at home) they need to offer rates that reflect the risk."
},
{
"docid": "22961",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\""
},
{
"docid": "475418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope. A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the \"\"required real rate,\"\" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve. Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used. Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the \"\"Bernanke Twist\"\" and \"\"Operation Twist\"\"? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "32744",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative."
},
{
"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": "254933",
"title": "",
"text": "**SeaWorld: Animal rescue and rehabilitation program** SeaWorld operates its conservation program in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service and state agencies; its rescue and rehabilitation program was developed to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Since its inception SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has rescued or helped more than 29,000 animals, including ill, orphaned or abandoned and injured manatees, dolphins, pilot whales, sea turtles, and birds. As part of its animal rehabilitation program, SeaWorld has claimed the first birth of a killer whale in captivity, the first birth of a marine mammal via artificial insemination, and the first hatching of captive green sea turtles. While acknowledging the value of these programs, critics and animal rights advocates have questioned SeaWorld's balance of conservation and education alongside the commercial activities of its theme parks. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "312248",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You obviously pay your taxes in Switzerland and are employed (judging from your comments on your maximum possible contribution to the 3. Säule). Under these circumstances, your best best may well be to pay into the occupational pension system (\"\"Einkauf in die 2. Säule\"\"). Essentially, you can add funds to your pension plan to match non-existent employer contributions from times you spent studying etc. The 2. Säule is usually defensively invested in bonds, so it's not a completely secure investment. In addition, it's a pretty fixed investment, since you can only get your money out if you buy a house or leave Switzerland for good. However, your entire payment into the 2. Säule is tax deductible, so the tax effect in itself should be a very attractive bit of \"\"interest\"\". Your pension plan can inform you about the maximum possible Einkauf.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "281051",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which, if someone has been out of work for a while, may well be the unemployed one. After all rescuing someone from despair is a step towards nurturing loyalty. For those who struggle with answering questions about why you have been unemployed for 2 years, people do like underdogs they can believe in. Nothing wrong with saying this is my dream job and you should pick me over others because I need it more and will fight harder to meet my goals for an employer that \"\"took a chance\"\" on me.\""
},
{
"docid": "416188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\""
},
{
"docid": "456771",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card."
},
{
"docid": "484884",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate."
},
{
"docid": "565233",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the issues you have listed will definitely be some of the larger ones over the next few months even. In relation to interest rates though I think inflation/deflation will aslo start to become an increasinly debated topic, especially if they decide on more QE. Over the next few months into the election I expect to see a flight to quality from the big money and then from retail investors (aren't we already seeing this?). This would bear negative for most stock averages and indexs and positive for \"\"safe\"\" assets such as gold, treasuries, what else? In my opinion the industry that stands to take the biggest losses are the financials, particulary the TBTF banks. This will be a large issue in the election and there is really no way they can walk away from the Europe situation unharmed. In the event of a war (Israel/Iran I assume you mean), I would imagine oil would come up from the relative low it is at now. This would then increase the appeal of Nat Gas which I don't think can stay at the price level it is at now. tl;dr - bearish for the stock markets, bullish on safe assets as doubt in the system increases significantly\""
},
{
"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": "499454",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time."
},
{
"docid": "47373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\""
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "227134",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit agency sovereign ratings take into account the amount of external support the government is likely to get during a time of stress. The whole EU just came to Spain's rescue, but who would come to India's rescue so as to be sufficient to prevent default? See, the fact that Spain was able to get a bailout is most of the reason Spain's credit rating is higher than India's."
},
{
"docid": "22961",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\""
},
{
"docid": "282379",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think there's value in charging family members/friends interest if it will make them take the loan seriously. The problem is that if you're thinking about charging interest because the person seems to be borrowing from you too cavalierly, it may be too late to make them take it seriously. In the situation you describe, if you're concerned about the loans being paid back, I think you need to have a serious conversation with the kids and make it clear you expect them to pay the loans back on whatever schedule you agreed to. If, based on your knowledge of your kids, you think charging interest would help motivate them to do this, great. If not, charging interest is unlikely to accomplish anything that the conversation itself won't accomplish. If you haven't previously outlined a specific schedule or set of expectations for how you want to be paid back, just doing that (in writing) may be enough to make them realize it's not a joke. The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't lend money to anyone unless you're either a) okay with never being paid back; or b) willing to pursue legal remedies to ensure you're paid back. Most people aren't willing to sue their own family members over small loans, which means in most cases it's not a good idea to loan money to family unless you're \"\"okay with\"\" never being repaid (whatever level of \"\"okay with\"\" makes sense for you). I should note that I don't have kids; my advice here is just how I would handle it if I were considering loaning money to my brother or a close friend or the like. This means I don't really know anything about \"\"teaching the kids about the real world\"\", but I have to say my hunch is that if your kids are 25+ and married, it's too late to radically change their views on how \"\"the real world\"\" works; unless they had a very sheltered early adulthood, they've been living in the real world for too long and will have their own ideas of how it works.\""
},
{
"docid": "314611",
"title": "",
"text": "Now this is a really interesting one, so a Canadian guy who's ex brother in law was in Guantanamo, gets married again and decides to take his pregnant wife on a Back packing trip to Afghanistan and gets kidnapped by the Taliban, who allow him and his wife to have 2 more children in captivity, because they don't know how white people fuck, all the while US intelligence is tracking them, but doing nothing till they cross the Pakistani border where they inform the Pakistani Army to free the hostages but do nothing all the while they traveled through Afghanistan, and the family is rescued, after a fire ight but refuses to board an American aircraft in fear of being arrested and Donald Liddle' Wick thinks he is being respected more. Fucking Moron is an understatement"
},
{
"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": "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": "360491",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you. I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit. If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk. We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it. It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other. You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks. If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question: a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost. Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy. When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo. And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better."
},
{
"docid": "15330",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\""
},
{
"docid": "83230",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees."
},
{
"docid": "52942",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is determine how much equity is in the car (positive or negative). Then for your car payments has that been paid out of money that has already been split or is it from a pool that is still to be slit. If the later, then it is irrelevant to this discussion since it was from a joint pool. If the money has already been split then adjust her half of the equity in the car by what you have been paying an make her that offer for her half of the car. I recommend showing her the calculations so as to explain how you came with what she is owed and then let her make a counter offer."
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "404356",
"title": "",
"text": "In Switzerland you should have access to many brokers with fair rates, e.g. Interactive Brokers. Going through them you then put the money in various Swiss stocks like Roche, Novartis, Swisscom, Credit Suisse, Logitech, etc. No stock should be more than 10% of the total. Since you pay 0% taxes on investment profits, you really should invest. By going through a broker instead of your bank, you can cash out at any time without losing outrageous fees for the stock commissions (often 2% for banks, around 0% for brokers). If you're employed you can also ask your employer to increase the amount of your salary that goes to the pension (2. Säule), which is not limited like the 7000 you mentioned (3.Säule)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "15330",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\""
},
{
"docid": "47373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\""
},
{
"docid": "484884",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate."
},
{
"docid": "475393",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent."
},
{
"docid": "334232",
"title": "",
"text": "> MSNBC is not just as bad. And this is how you can identify someone who has been brainwashed by the television and probably needs to be rescued. It's two sides of the exact same coin, and their only real goal is to control every moment of your life. Wake up or live as a slave."
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "565233",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the issues you have listed will definitely be some of the larger ones over the next few months even. In relation to interest rates though I think inflation/deflation will aslo start to become an increasinly debated topic, especially if they decide on more QE. Over the next few months into the election I expect to see a flight to quality from the big money and then from retail investors (aren't we already seeing this?). This would bear negative for most stock averages and indexs and positive for \"\"safe\"\" assets such as gold, treasuries, what else? In my opinion the industry that stands to take the biggest losses are the financials, particulary the TBTF banks. This will be a large issue in the election and there is really no way they can walk away from the Europe situation unharmed. In the event of a war (Israel/Iran I assume you mean), I would imagine oil would come up from the relative low it is at now. This would then increase the appeal of Nat Gas which I don't think can stay at the price level it is at now. tl;dr - bearish for the stock markets, bullish on safe assets as doubt in the system increases significantly\""
},
{
"docid": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "190225",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you."
},
{
"docid": "306130",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason for these low interests is that the Japanese central bank is giving away money at negative interests to banks. Yes, negative. So, short of opening your own bank, you'll have to either choose less liquid investments or more risky ones. Get Japanese government bonds. Not a great interest, band not that liquid, but for a 5 years bond you'll do better than the bank can. Get Japanese corporate bonds. Still not great, and a bit more risky, it's better than nothing. Get a Japanese mutual fund. I can't recommend any though. Buy Japanese stock. Many Japanese stock have interesting kickbacks. For example if you buy enough stock of Book-Off you'll get some free books every month. it's risky though because I believe the next NIKKEI index crash is imminent."
},
{
"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": "475418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope. A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the \"\"required real rate,\"\" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve. Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used. Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the \"\"Bernanke Twist\"\" and \"\"Operation Twist\"\"? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "254933",
"title": "",
"text": "**SeaWorld: Animal rescue and rehabilitation program** SeaWorld operates its conservation program in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service and state agencies; its rescue and rehabilitation program was developed to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Since its inception SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has rescued or helped more than 29,000 animals, including ill, orphaned or abandoned and injured manatees, dolphins, pilot whales, sea turtles, and birds. As part of its animal rehabilitation program, SeaWorld has claimed the first birth of a killer whale in captivity, the first birth of a marine mammal via artificial insemination, and the first hatching of captive green sea turtles. While acknowledging the value of these programs, critics and animal rights advocates have questioned SeaWorld's balance of conservation and education alongside the commercial activities of its theme parks. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"
},
{
"docid": "314611",
"title": "",
"text": "Now this is a really interesting one, so a Canadian guy who's ex brother in law was in Guantanamo, gets married again and decides to take his pregnant wife on a Back packing trip to Afghanistan and gets kidnapped by the Taliban, who allow him and his wife to have 2 more children in captivity, because they don't know how white people fuck, all the while US intelligence is tracking them, but doing nothing till they cross the Pakistani border where they inform the Pakistani Army to free the hostages but do nothing all the while they traveled through Afghanistan, and the family is rescued, after a fire ight but refuses to board an American aircraft in fear of being arrested and Donald Liddle' Wick thinks he is being respected more. Fucking Moron is an understatement"
},
{
"docid": "50509",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well what you said about money is the reason people say \"\"things are only worth, what people are willing to pay for them\"\". There is plenty of economic reasons to for instance conserve coastlines and the environment because deforestation, and coral destruction have negative externalities associated with that have to paid out in the future by who ever suffers from those externalities. However there isn't a market for eco-bonds or a way to value that landmass effectively which is a real issue for ecological conservation. There are people trying to do what and there is an interesting article this week in The New Scientist about such nexus between ecology and economics but while there is clear value somewhere assigning it a price only works if people are willing to buy or invest in it. Its quite sad how many of the critics of modern banking don't really appreciate what they do and what finance does (or more commonly confusion arises about what finance even is, let alone what it does).\""
},
{
"docid": "416188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\""
},
{
"docid": "499354",
"title": "",
"text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed."
},
{
"docid": "532888",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes. For Federal income tax purposes, you are taxed on your total income, adding up positives and negatives. If business A made, say, $100,000 while business B lost $20,000, then your total income is $80,000, and that's what you'll be taxed on. As @littleadv says, of course any business losses you claim must qualify as business losses under IRS rules. And yes, there are special rules about losses that the IRS considers \"\"passive\"\". If you have wage income in addition to business income, business losses don't offset wage income for social security and medicare tax purposes. You can't get a refund of the social security tax deducted from your paycheck. I don't know if this is relevant to you, but: If you have businesses in different states, each is taxed by that state. For example I have two tiny side businesses, one in Michigan and one in Ohio. Last year the Michigan business made money while the Ohio business lost money. So my federal income was Michigan minus Ohio. My Ohio income was negative so I owed no Ohio income tax. But I couldn't subtract my Ohio losses from my Michigan income for Michigan income tax purposes. Thus, having, say, $10,000 income in Michigan and $10,000 in Ohio would result in lower taxes than $30,000 income in Michigan and a $10,000 loss in Ohio, even though the total income in both cases is the same. And this would be true even if the tax rates in both states were identical.\""
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "374400",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The problem is that every option comes with risk - as you note, if you put money in stocks, you could lose (and many stocks are overpriced). If you put money in bonds, you could lose (many bonds are overpriced). If you buy precious metals, they could fall further currently. If you hold cash, central banks might try to ban cash (we'll hear the typical \"\"This will never happen\"\" from financial advisers - and they'll be wrong). Cryptocurrencies are an option, but boy do they fluctuate, so there's risk here too. Those are options and all come with risks, and here's my preferred approach to handling negative interest rates:\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "52942",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is determine how much equity is in the car (positive or negative). Then for your car payments has that been paid out of money that has already been split or is it from a pool that is still to be slit. If the later, then it is irrelevant to this discussion since it was from a joint pool. If the money has already been split then adjust her half of the equity in the car by what you have been paying an make her that offer for her half of the car. I recommend showing her the calculations so as to explain how you came with what she is owed and then let her make a counter offer."
},
{
"docid": "61586",
"title": "",
"text": "This does not really fit your liquidity requirement but consider buying a one or two room apartment to rent out with part of your savings. You will get income from it and small apartments sell quickly if you do need the money. This will help offset the negative interest from the rest. One downside is that other people have the same idea at the moment and the real estate prices are inflated somewhat."
},
{
"docid": "31142",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Despite having a math degree, I basically only use basic algebra/probability/calculus on a day to day basis as my career has gone a different direction away from the modelling/quanty stuff. Some fun reading: * The SABR Model - [SABR/LIBOR Model](http://www.amazon.com/SABR-LIBOR-Market-Model-Interest-Rate/dp/0470740051) * Shevre's Stochastic Calculus for Finance - [Book 1](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Binomial-Textbooks/dp/0387249680/) & [Book 2](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Continuous-Time-Textbooks/dp/144192311X/) One of the big 'hard' problems is calibrating a swap curve w/ what's known as the 3s6s Basis. As a number of true quants have said to me it is a \"\"non-trivial problem\"\". Its basically trying to match two curves with different compounding over a number of different knot points. SABR Model, listed above, is all about calibrating and figuring out how the current rate enviroment is behaving, is it normal or lognormal? What is the blend between the two, how do you know when you are in a different environment etc. Can rates go negative?\""
},
{
"docid": "187739",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt."
},
{
"docid": "83230",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees."
},
{
"docid": "22961",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\""
},
{
"docid": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "227134",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit agency sovereign ratings take into account the amount of external support the government is likely to get during a time of stress. The whole EU just came to Spain's rescue, but who would come to India's rescue so as to be sufficient to prevent default? See, the fact that Spain was able to get a bailout is most of the reason Spain's credit rating is higher than India's."
},
{
"docid": "499392",
"title": "",
"text": "Got some questions related to banks and cash, specifically required reserve ratio and capital requirements. The way i understand it is, a bank is required to hold a percentage of money it has loaned to other people (required reserve ratio). Example: If the rrr is 10%; i give the bank 100k, because it is only required to hold 10% (10k) it loans 90k to my neighbour, neighbour buys a car from the dealership, the dealership banks the 90k. now the bank can loan 81k of the dealerships 90k. The bank loans to businessman who buys land worth 81k, land owner banks the 81k. So the bank received 100k from me to hold and protect, loaned 90k to bob,recieved 90k from dealership,loaned 81k to businessman, recieved 81k from land owner. 100k+90k+81k = 271k bank over time will receive another 90k from bob, and 81k from business man + interest. This all assumes there is 1 bank, and all these people put there money in the bank not keeping cash. In my native country we have no required reserve ratio, we have a capital requirement. On our central bank website it states a total capital ratio of 8%. A capital ratio is equity + (profit-money given to shareholders) / risk weighted assets. Question, how do you determine equity, profit, and risk weighted assets for a bank? is equity the cash the bank has, profit the money from fees+interest, and risk weighted assets how much money the bank has in loans?"
},
{
"docid": "177736",
"title": "",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs."
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "310032",
"title": "",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine."
},
{
"docid": "472837",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, most economists considered a sustained negative interest rate impossible for just the reason you describe: an investor could outperform a bond with a negative interest rate by simply hoarding cash. For background, see Wikipedia. Experimentation by central banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis, however, demonstrates that slightly negative interest rates are possible. First of all, note that the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" on interest rates has everything to do with the existence of cash as an alternative. It's a lower bound on the nominal interest rate, rather than the real interest rate—that is, on the rate before adjusting for inflation. In most situations, the real interest rate is more economically meaningful, as it's the real interest rate that measures the market's preference for \"\"stuff now\"\" as opposed to \"\"stuff later.\"\" There's nothing in principle or in practice to stop a negative real interest rate: there are always some people who want stuff now and some people who want stuff later; a negative real interest rate just means that people who want stuff later are more dominant in the market. As I stated earlier, what creates the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" is the existence of cash as an alternative to bonds. Even though that lower bound applies, it's not strict: hoarding cash in large quantities can be difficult and expensive, especially when central banks are doing their best to prevent you from doing it. Consequently, investors who strongly prefer \"\"stuff later\"\" to \"\"stuff now\"\" are willing to pay a slightly negative nominal interest rate on bonds in order to avoid those costs. If it were significantly negative, however, you're right that no sane investor would buy such a bond.\""
},
{
"docid": "50509",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well what you said about money is the reason people say \"\"things are only worth, what people are willing to pay for them\"\". There is plenty of economic reasons to for instance conserve coastlines and the environment because deforestation, and coral destruction have negative externalities associated with that have to paid out in the future by who ever suffers from those externalities. However there isn't a market for eco-bonds or a way to value that landmass effectively which is a real issue for ecological conservation. There are people trying to do what and there is an interesting article this week in The New Scientist about such nexus between ecology and economics but while there is clear value somewhere assigning it a price only works if people are willing to buy or invest in it. Its quite sad how many of the critics of modern banking don't really appreciate what they do and what finance does (or more commonly confusion arises about what finance even is, let alone what it does).\""
},
{
"docid": "254933",
"title": "",
"text": "**SeaWorld: Animal rescue and rehabilitation program** SeaWorld operates its conservation program in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service and state agencies; its rescue and rehabilitation program was developed to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Since its inception SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has rescued or helped more than 29,000 animals, including ill, orphaned or abandoned and injured manatees, dolphins, pilot whales, sea turtles, and birds. As part of its animal rehabilitation program, SeaWorld has claimed the first birth of a killer whale in captivity, the first birth of a marine mammal via artificial insemination, and the first hatching of captive green sea turtles. While acknowledging the value of these programs, critics and animal rights advocates have questioned SeaWorld's balance of conservation and education alongside the commercial activities of its theme parks. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"
},
{
"docid": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"docid": "416188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\""
},
{
"docid": "101867",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally, anyone can. Selling them is an interesting point, as the buyer has a counterparty risk that you won't be able to pay at the term of the contract. So, if I was a vendor buying a derivative in my example, I would definitely get that derivative from a bank as opposed to my friend Jim Bob. Especially in cases of bespoke derivatives, it doesn't make sense for anyone except people who have material interest to by it, as the expectation value of the hedge is negative. Essentially, you're more likely to lose money than gain money from a hedge. The exception is when you have information above that of the market, which could allow for a positive return. That is the reason that people advocate for derivatives as mechanisms of price discovery, because large imbalances aren't likely to form when someone could arbitrage or even just take positions when the market goes out of whack. That only really works in publically traded markets, however, bespoke derivatives don't really contribute to better pricing afaik. Of course, that's the simple explanation to a huge, complex, and varied field. Certainly, speculators exist, particularly in the more commoditized derivatives. Especially in the leadup to the financial crisis, large amounts were spent on exotic derivatives that blew up in people's faces. The easiest thing to say about them is that they are double edged swords. In theory, they're fantastic, as it allows risk to be spread around to people that want it. It should lead to a safer system, as hedged comapnies are less exposed to shocks and are more resilient. But in practice, we've alao seen them used as risk concentrators (AIG). We've seen cases where correlations arise that weren't assumed before, and what used to be manageable positions become lead weights. We've seen the dangers that large systemically important financial institutions have when they are a counterparty to tens of trillions in notional derivatives, as when they fail the risk of failure is over every derivative they are counterparty to, not just the hedged exposure. Sorry, this is more than you asked for. I tend to get carried away."
},
{
"docid": "211026",
"title": "",
"text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates."
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "61586",
"title": "",
"text": "This does not really fit your liquidity requirement but consider buying a one or two room apartment to rent out with part of your savings. You will get income from it and small apartments sell quickly if you do need the money. This will help offset the negative interest from the rest. One downside is that other people have the same idea at the moment and the real estate prices are inflated somewhat."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "374400",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The problem is that every option comes with risk - as you note, if you put money in stocks, you could lose (and many stocks are overpriced). If you put money in bonds, you could lose (many bonds are overpriced). If you buy precious metals, they could fall further currently. If you hold cash, central banks might try to ban cash (we'll hear the typical \"\"This will never happen\"\" from financial advisers - and they'll be wrong). Cryptocurrencies are an option, but boy do they fluctuate, so there's risk here too. Those are options and all come with risks, and here's my preferred approach to handling negative interest rates:\""
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "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": "475393",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent."
},
{
"docid": "475418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope. A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the \"\"required real rate,\"\" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve. Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used. Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the \"\"Bernanke Twist\"\" and \"\"Operation Twist\"\"? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "499392",
"title": "",
"text": "Got some questions related to banks and cash, specifically required reserve ratio and capital requirements. The way i understand it is, a bank is required to hold a percentage of money it has loaned to other people (required reserve ratio). Example: If the rrr is 10%; i give the bank 100k, because it is only required to hold 10% (10k) it loans 90k to my neighbour, neighbour buys a car from the dealership, the dealership banks the 90k. now the bank can loan 81k of the dealerships 90k. The bank loans to businessman who buys land worth 81k, land owner banks the 81k. So the bank received 100k from me to hold and protect, loaned 90k to bob,recieved 90k from dealership,loaned 81k to businessman, recieved 81k from land owner. 100k+90k+81k = 271k bank over time will receive another 90k from bob, and 81k from business man + interest. This all assumes there is 1 bank, and all these people put there money in the bank not keeping cash. In my native country we have no required reserve ratio, we have a capital requirement. On our central bank website it states a total capital ratio of 8%. A capital ratio is equity + (profit-money given to shareholders) / risk weighted assets. Question, how do you determine equity, profit, and risk weighted assets for a bank? is equity the cash the bank has, profit the money from fees+interest, and risk weighted assets how much money the bank has in loans?"
},
{
"docid": "209569",
"title": "",
"text": "Ever wondered why no bankers got arrested? Henry Paulson needed them on board. He has gone on record saying as much. You don't make this sort of rescue by dangling people over a cauldron, you need the political will. Remember some of the banks didn't even need TARP, they had to be convinced to take them against their best interests."
},
{
"docid": "30584",
"title": "",
"text": "The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today. Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer. Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason."
},
{
"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": "360491",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you. I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit. If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk. We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it. It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other. You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks. If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question: a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost. Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy. When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo. And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better."
},
{
"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": "508706",
"title": "",
"text": "There is very little effect whatsoever of having a joint bank account--positive or negative. Positive effects: It would be very easy to send your mother money...she can just take it out of the account. If you passed away she could get the money without having to use the legal system (or vice versa). This latter effect is why I have a bunch of joint accounts with my wife...if either of us died I wouldn't want getting access to our money to be an additional hassle. Negative effects: She is able to access money in that account without your consen, which you have pointed out is not going to happen. The case I'm thinking of would be something like a tax lien against her. A government agency might choose to pull money out of that joint account. That would be a downside for you. If we were discussing credit cards, a loan, or a line of credit, there would be a number of legal and credit-rating effects from joint ownership. Not so much with checking accounts."
},
{
"docid": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "32744",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative."
},
{
"docid": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"docid": "545491",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\""
},
{
"docid": "518896",
"title": "",
"text": "How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations."
},
{
"docid": "51715",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity. It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later). In your case it may or may not be a good idea. Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea. Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way. Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference. If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern. If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea. You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall. If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon. It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case. There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%. A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying \"\"riskier\"\" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea.\""
},
{
"docid": "482077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\""
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "514003",
"title": "",
"text": "How about placing the money in a safety deposit box at the same bank? This will probably work out cheaper than the loss due to negative rates. Although, I'm quite sure the banks won't like this idea."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "449439",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "50509",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well what you said about money is the reason people say \"\"things are only worth, what people are willing to pay for them\"\". There is plenty of economic reasons to for instance conserve coastlines and the environment because deforestation, and coral destruction have negative externalities associated with that have to paid out in the future by who ever suffers from those externalities. However there isn't a market for eco-bonds or a way to value that landmass effectively which is a real issue for ecological conservation. There are people trying to do what and there is an interesting article this week in The New Scientist about such nexus between ecology and economics but while there is clear value somewhere assigning it a price only works if people are willing to buy or invest in it. Its quite sad how many of the critics of modern banking don't really appreciate what they do and what finance does (or more commonly confusion arises about what finance even is, let alone what it does).\""
},
{
"docid": "438403",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul. > He noted that &quot;The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone.&quot; He added that he hoped future conditions might allow &quot;Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold&quot; on interest rates. > The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "499454",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time."
},
{
"docid": "211026",
"title": "",
"text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates."
},
{
"docid": "360491",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you. I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit. If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk. We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it. It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other. You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks. If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question: a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost. Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy. When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo. And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better."
},
{
"docid": "203926",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return."
},
{
"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": "499392",
"title": "",
"text": "Got some questions related to banks and cash, specifically required reserve ratio and capital requirements. The way i understand it is, a bank is required to hold a percentage of money it has loaned to other people (required reserve ratio). Example: If the rrr is 10%; i give the bank 100k, because it is only required to hold 10% (10k) it loans 90k to my neighbour, neighbour buys a car from the dealership, the dealership banks the 90k. now the bank can loan 81k of the dealerships 90k. The bank loans to businessman who buys land worth 81k, land owner banks the 81k. So the bank received 100k from me to hold and protect, loaned 90k to bob,recieved 90k from dealership,loaned 81k to businessman, recieved 81k from land owner. 100k+90k+81k = 271k bank over time will receive another 90k from bob, and 81k from business man + interest. This all assumes there is 1 bank, and all these people put there money in the bank not keeping cash. In my native country we have no required reserve ratio, we have a capital requirement. On our central bank website it states a total capital ratio of 8%. A capital ratio is equity + (profit-money given to shareholders) / risk weighted assets. Question, how do you determine equity, profit, and risk weighted assets for a bank? is equity the cash the bank has, profit the money from fees+interest, and risk weighted assets how much money the bank has in loans?"
},
{
"docid": "93332",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question that I walk away with is \"\"What is the cost of the downside protection?\"\" Disclaimer - I don't sell anything. I am not a fan of insurance as an investment, with rare exceptions. (I'll stop there, all else is a tangent) There's an appeal to looking at the distribution of stock returns. It looks a bit like a bell curve, with a median at 10% or so, and a standard deviation of 15 or so. This implies that there are some number of years on average that the market will be down, and others, about 2/3, up. Now, you wish to purchase a way of avoiding that negative return, and need to ask yourself what it's worth to do so. The insurance company tells you (a) 2% off the top, i.e. no dividends and (b) we will clip the high end, over 9.5%. I then am compelled to look at the numbers. Knowing that your product can't be bought and sold every year, it's appropriate to look at 10-yr rolling returns. The annual returns I see, and the return you'd have in any period. I start with 1900-2012. I see an average 9.8% with STD of 5.3%. Remember, the 10 year rolling will do a good job pushing the STD down. The return the Insurance would give you is an average 5.4%, with STD of .01. You've bought your way out of all risk, but at what cost? From 1900-2012, my dollar grows to $30080, yours, to $406. For much of the time, treasuries were higher than your return. Much higher. It's interesting to see how often the market is over 10% for the year, clip too many of those and you really lose out. From 1900-2012, I count 31 negative years (ouch) but 64 years over 9.5%. The 31 averaged -13.5%, the 64, 25.3%. The illusion of \"\"market gains\"\" is how this product is sold. Long term, they lag safe treasuries.\""
},
{
"docid": "310032",
"title": "",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine."
},
{
"docid": "15330",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\""
},
{
"docid": "257633",
"title": "",
"text": "This is just a guess but I would imagine that it has to do with risk. The deposits in Banks are usually as safe as government bonds (broad oversimplification) as: The US government is considered the most trustworthy - even in unlikely event of being close to default it would be rescued by FED (so it can just print the money). So the banks at the same time have very low competition regarding government bonds and the investments they can do have relatively low ROI so they cannot offer much more competitive rates. On the other hand Ukrainian bonds have current rating Caa3/CCC-/CCC - i.e. the Goverment is judged to be likely to default (as you pointed out there is war going on) and in result the government bonds are considered highly speculative. Therefore to attract foreign investors they need to have high interest rating. Similarly the CDs at the banks can be considered at the risk of being lost so to prevent flight of capital overseas (or people keeping USD in cash form at home) they need to offer rates that reflect the risk."
},
{
"docid": "482077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "499354",
"title": "",
"text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed."
},
{
"docid": "366869",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan."
},
{
"docid": "32744",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative."
},
{
"docid": "15262",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for \"\"double entry\"\" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts).\""
},
{
"docid": "281051",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which, if someone has been out of work for a while, may well be the unemployed one. After all rescuing someone from despair is a step towards nurturing loyalty. For those who struggle with answering questions about why you have been unemployed for 2 years, people do like underdogs they can believe in. Nothing wrong with saying this is my dream job and you should pick me over others because I need it more and will fight harder to meet my goals for an employer that \"\"took a chance\"\" on me.\""
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "193459",
"title": "",
"text": "You might want to talk with your financial planner about any or all of the following: as well as Some of these offer the guarantee of a minimal amount of interest, as well as the ability to take a loan out against the cash value, without lapsing the policy. They may also offer certain tax advantages depending upon your jurisdiction and situation."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "51715",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity. It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later). In your case it may or may not be a good idea. Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea. Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way. Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference. If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern. If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea. You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall. If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon. It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case. There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%. A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying \"\"riskier\"\" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea.\""
},
{
"docid": "334232",
"title": "",
"text": "> MSNBC is not just as bad. And this is how you can identify someone who has been brainwashed by the television and probably needs to be rescued. It's two sides of the exact same coin, and their only real goal is to control every moment of your life. Wake up or live as a slave."
},
{
"docid": "32744",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative."
},
{
"docid": "395409",
"title": "",
"text": "This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities."
},
{
"docid": "177736",
"title": "",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs."
},
{
"docid": "475418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope. A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the \"\"required real rate,\"\" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve. Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used. Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the \"\"Bernanke Twist\"\" and \"\"Operation Twist\"\"? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "235484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000 less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage. If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes. If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well. When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down. When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years. A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting. The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners.\""
},
{
"docid": "15330",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\""
},
{
"docid": "75300",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\""
},
{
"docid": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"docid": "254933",
"title": "",
"text": "**SeaWorld: Animal rescue and rehabilitation program** SeaWorld operates its conservation program in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service and state agencies; its rescue and rehabilitation program was developed to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Since its inception SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has rescued or helped more than 29,000 animals, including ill, orphaned or abandoned and injured manatees, dolphins, pilot whales, sea turtles, and birds. As part of its animal rehabilitation program, SeaWorld has claimed the first birth of a killer whale in captivity, the first birth of a marine mammal via artificial insemination, and the first hatching of captive green sea turtles. While acknowledging the value of these programs, critics and animal rights advocates have questioned SeaWorld's balance of conservation and education alongside the commercial activities of its theme parks. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "50509",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well what you said about money is the reason people say \"\"things are only worth, what people are willing to pay for them\"\". There is plenty of economic reasons to for instance conserve coastlines and the environment because deforestation, and coral destruction have negative externalities associated with that have to paid out in the future by who ever suffers from those externalities. However there isn't a market for eco-bonds or a way to value that landmass effectively which is a real issue for ecological conservation. There are people trying to do what and there is an interesting article this week in The New Scientist about such nexus between ecology and economics but while there is clear value somewhere assigning it a price only works if people are willing to buy or invest in it. Its quite sad how many of the critics of modern banking don't really appreciate what they do and what finance does (or more commonly confusion arises about what finance even is, let alone what it does).\""
},
{
"docid": "456848",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Although they probably don't help ISIS, it will be interesting to see how Paypal's moral agency holds up to the rigorous whataboutism of the internet - remember a few months ago when the bank USAA pulled advertising from one news channel, then after public outcry, pulled their advertising from multiple channels because it fit the same box of \"\"not advertising on controversial sources\"\" ? That said, paypal has always been kind of douchy in regards to servicing its customers properly- holding money, screwing over sellers, black listing users and more- a lot of people probably already have a truly negative opinion of paypal, perhaps this move is designed to earn them some goodwill? If so, I doubt we'll see even application of the original line of thought -- don't want to urk those who you're attempting to pander to.\""
},
{
"docid": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"docid": "438403",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul. > He noted that &quot;The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone.&quot; He added that he hoped future conditions might allow &quot;Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold&quot; on interest rates. > The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "98920",
"title": "",
"text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return."
},
{
"docid": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "518896",
"title": "",
"text": "How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations."
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "245616",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "328499",
"title": "",
"text": "There is some sense that negative interest rates make no sense, because then two things appear to happen Neither of these are true in reality. But then we are edging towards a deflationary time, during which the common understanding of money and what to do with money reverses. During deflation, spending is better (to an extent) because the buying power of money is less as time passes, so also saving is less worthwhile. But for the bond market (and your question), the reason why people are still investing in negative interest bonds, is that they are going to be looking to capital gain to make their money. Over time the bond price fluctuates and as the bond approaches maturity, the bond price equates to the face value minus whatever interest will be received, or in this plus whatever interest will need to be payed."
},
{
"docid": "334232",
"title": "",
"text": "> MSNBC is not just as bad. And this is how you can identify someone who has been brainwashed by the television and probably needs to be rescued. It's two sides of the exact same coin, and their only real goal is to control every moment of your life. Wake up or live as a slave."
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "310032",
"title": "",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine."
},
{
"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": "211026",
"title": "",
"text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates."
},
{
"docid": "61586",
"title": "",
"text": "This does not really fit your liquidity requirement but consider buying a one or two room apartment to rent out with part of your savings. You will get income from it and small apartments sell quickly if you do need the money. This will help offset the negative interest from the rest. One downside is that other people have the same idea at the moment and the real estate prices are inflated somewhat."
},
{
"docid": "32744",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative."
},
{
"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": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "83230",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees."
},
{
"docid": "219910",
"title": "",
"text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light."
},
{
"docid": "75300",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\""
},
{
"docid": "518896",
"title": "",
"text": "How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations."
},
{
"docid": "22961",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\""
},
{
"docid": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "187739",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt."
}
] |
3909 | How to rescue my money from negative interest? | [
{
"docid": "353028",
"title": "",
"text": "You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "211026",
"title": "",
"text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates."
},
{
"docid": "544020",
"title": "",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations."
},
{
"docid": "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": "13656",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !"
},
{
"docid": "15262",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for \"\"double entry\"\" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts).\""
},
{
"docid": "98920",
"title": "",
"text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return."
},
{
"docid": "235484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000 less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage. If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes. If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well. When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down. When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years. A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting. The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners.\""
},
{
"docid": "484884",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate."
},
{
"docid": "61586",
"title": "",
"text": "This does not really fit your liquidity requirement but consider buying a one or two room apartment to rent out with part of your savings. You will get income from it and small apartments sell quickly if you do need the money. This will help offset the negative interest from the rest. One downside is that other people have the same idea at the moment and the real estate prices are inflated somewhat."
},
{
"docid": "83230",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees."
},
{
"docid": "182042",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The fund will take a small percentage of its assets to cover the expenses. Reported returns come after the expense ratio has been factored into things. Money market mutual funds can have a zero yield in some cases though breaking the buck can happen in some cases as noted on Wikipedia: The first money market mutual fund to break the buck was First Multifund for Daily Income (FMDI) in 1978, liquidating and restating NAV at 94 cents per share. An argument has been made that FMDI was not technically a money market fund as at the time of liquidation the average maturity of securities in its portfolio exceeded two years.[7] However, prospective investors were informed that FMDI would invest \"\"solely in Short-Term (30-90 days) MONEY MARKET obligations.\"\" Furthermore, the rule, which restricts the maturities which money market funds are permitted to invest in, Rule 2-a7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, was not promulgated until 1983. Prior to the adoption of this rule, a mutual fund had to do little other than present itself as a money market fund, which FMDI did. Seeking higher yield, FMDI had purchased increasingly longer maturity securities and rising interest rates negatively impacted the value of its portfolio. In order to meet increasing redemptions the fund was forced to sell a certificate of deposit at a 3% loss, triggering a restatement of its NAV and the first instance of a money market fund \"\"breaking the buck\"\". The Community Bankers US Government Fund broke the buck in 1994, paying investors 96 cents per share. This was only the second failure in the then 23-year history of money funds and there were no further failures for 14 years. The fund had invested a large percentage of its assets into adjustable rate securities. As interest rates increased, these floating rate securities lost value. This fund was an institutional money fund, not a retail money fund, thus individuals were not directly affected. No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds. However, as noted above, other failures were only averted by infusions of capital from the fund sponsors. Thus consider how likely is Fidelity Investments prepared to have people question how safe is their money with them which is why fund sponsors rarely break the buck.\""
},
{
"docid": "532888",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes. For Federal income tax purposes, you are taxed on your total income, adding up positives and negatives. If business A made, say, $100,000 while business B lost $20,000, then your total income is $80,000, and that's what you'll be taxed on. As @littleadv says, of course any business losses you claim must qualify as business losses under IRS rules. And yes, there are special rules about losses that the IRS considers \"\"passive\"\". If you have wage income in addition to business income, business losses don't offset wage income for social security and medicare tax purposes. You can't get a refund of the social security tax deducted from your paycheck. I don't know if this is relevant to you, but: If you have businesses in different states, each is taxed by that state. For example I have two tiny side businesses, one in Michigan and one in Ohio. Last year the Michigan business made money while the Ohio business lost money. So my federal income was Michigan minus Ohio. My Ohio income was negative so I owed no Ohio income tax. But I couldn't subtract my Ohio losses from my Michigan income for Michigan income tax purposes. Thus, having, say, $10,000 income in Michigan and $10,000 in Ohio would result in lower taxes than $30,000 income in Michigan and a $10,000 loss in Ohio, even though the total income in both cases is the same. And this would be true even if the tax rates in both states were identical.\""
},
{
"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": "264976",
"title": "",
"text": "redethmoid, excellent questions and I appreciate that. The fact is that we do need employees in the workforce in all sectors, blue collar/white collar. The problem is the shift in the economy and how companies are responding to it. The corp execs only look at the bottom line especially when they are a public company(they have to impress wall street as their first priority). So what happens when profits and growth dip? They immediately start looking for ways to cut the budget and it's usually by firing/lay offs and/or offshore outsourcing. It's happening daily unfortunately. If you live in the U.S., there's no reason to be living in poverty. People are dying to get in this country because of the freedom and opportunities we have. It's all about mindset and how you view the world. Here's my advice. I don't know you or your background but I can feel the frustration and where your mindset is. First, remove the negative self talk from your language. Saying that you're broke and have no money will force the universe to leave you in that state. Start reading books on how to improve yourself first. Change starts with us, not outside forces. This is real shit my friend, not just some hype talk. Next, if you need a rat race job to make ends meet, then do it even if you have a college degree. Drop the ego and do what you gotta do. Find something that inspires you and you love to do and figure out how to make cash doing it. There are so many options out there, you just have to be willing to find them and open up your mind. I'll leave you with that for now. If you'd like to connect on social media and learn more about this topic, let me know and I'll give you my details. Have an awesome day! William"
},
{
"docid": "93332",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question that I walk away with is \"\"What is the cost of the downside protection?\"\" Disclaimer - I don't sell anything. I am not a fan of insurance as an investment, with rare exceptions. (I'll stop there, all else is a tangent) There's an appeal to looking at the distribution of stock returns. It looks a bit like a bell curve, with a median at 10% or so, and a standard deviation of 15 or so. This implies that there are some number of years on average that the market will be down, and others, about 2/3, up. Now, you wish to purchase a way of avoiding that negative return, and need to ask yourself what it's worth to do so. The insurance company tells you (a) 2% off the top, i.e. no dividends and (b) we will clip the high end, over 9.5%. I then am compelled to look at the numbers. Knowing that your product can't be bought and sold every year, it's appropriate to look at 10-yr rolling returns. The annual returns I see, and the return you'd have in any period. I start with 1900-2012. I see an average 9.8% with STD of 5.3%. Remember, the 10 year rolling will do a good job pushing the STD down. The return the Insurance would give you is an average 5.4%, with STD of .01. You've bought your way out of all risk, but at what cost? From 1900-2012, my dollar grows to $30080, yours, to $406. For much of the time, treasuries were higher than your return. Much higher. It's interesting to see how often the market is over 10% for the year, clip too many of those and you really lose out. From 1900-2012, I count 31 negative years (ouch) but 64 years over 9.5%. The 31 averaged -13.5%, the 64, 25.3%. The illusion of \"\"market gains\"\" is how this product is sold. Long term, they lag safe treasuries.\""
},
{
"docid": "187739",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt."
},
{
"docid": "362730",
"title": "",
"text": "Because they believe that negative interest rates will force people to push capital around, and promote investment to avoid the negative interest rates associated with having your cash sitting in an account. Most likely they will be banning cash within the next 10 years anyway which will prevent you from being able to keep it yourself. You will either need to: or"
},
{
"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": "177736",
"title": "",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs."
}
] |
3932 | How do historically low interest rates affect real estate prices? | [
{
"docid": "107697",
"title": "",
"text": "The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "297975",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know anything about Australian tax law, the Australian real estate market, or your parents' ability to repay the loan. However, no matter what the answers to those questions are, I do not recommend that you go through with this. The reason is the risk. Usually, with an investment, you are risking the money that you invest. However, with this investment, you are not only risking the money; you are also risking both you and your fiancé's relationship with your parents. If your parents have trouble paying back this money in a few years when you need it for your house, how will that affect how you feel about your parents? How will that affect how your fiancé feels about them? It will make family gatherings very awkward for everyone at least. Don't put family harmony at risk for the sake of an extra 2.8% return. There are other ways to invest that risk only money."
},
{
"docid": "80519",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (\"\"Grunderwerbssteuer\"\") and land registration fees (\"\"Grundbucheintrag\"\"). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (\"\"Hausverwalter\"\"). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security. However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google \"\"Mietrecht Eigenbedarf\"\" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree.\""
},
{
"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": "300297",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\""
},
{
"docid": "348466",
"title": "",
"text": "When it comes to Real Estate, there are 2 school of thoughts: 1. People who swear that it's the one and best way to make lots of money with RE: flipping, fixer upper, leveraging, whatnot 2. People who don't believe people in #1 above. I belong to #2 with some addendum(s): * you can make a lot of money in Real Estate by becoming a RE Broker (but it's not for everyone) even better if you own a RE agency employing brokers (but it's not for everyone); it's like collecting tolls on the highway, no matter what, you collect a fee. * every portfolio should have a portion allocated to Real Estate, either directly or by means of a REIT. Alas most people who own a home are over-allocated in Real Estate * in some, and very few, parts of the USA one can make a lot of money by buying and managing directly small apartment complex to rent out; these are remote small urban settings, low prices for both buying and renting, but the ratio of price/rent is favorable. Run your own numbers and see if it's profitable *enough* ***for you***."
},
{
"docid": "472837",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, most economists considered a sustained negative interest rate impossible for just the reason you describe: an investor could outperform a bond with a negative interest rate by simply hoarding cash. For background, see Wikipedia. Experimentation by central banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis, however, demonstrates that slightly negative interest rates are possible. First of all, note that the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" on interest rates has everything to do with the existence of cash as an alternative. It's a lower bound on the nominal interest rate, rather than the real interest rate—that is, on the rate before adjusting for inflation. In most situations, the real interest rate is more economically meaningful, as it's the real interest rate that measures the market's preference for \"\"stuff now\"\" as opposed to \"\"stuff later.\"\" There's nothing in principle or in practice to stop a negative real interest rate: there are always some people who want stuff now and some people who want stuff later; a negative real interest rate just means that people who want stuff later are more dominant in the market. As I stated earlier, what creates the \"\"zero lower bound\"\" is the existence of cash as an alternative to bonds. Even though that lower bound applies, it's not strict: hoarding cash in large quantities can be difficult and expensive, especially when central banks are doing their best to prevent you from doing it. Consequently, investors who strongly prefer \"\"stuff later\"\" to \"\"stuff now\"\" are willing to pay a slightly negative nominal interest rate on bonds in order to avoid those costs. If it were significantly negative, however, you're right that no sane investor would buy such a bond.\""
},
{
"docid": "441163",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them."
},
{
"docid": "103333",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps I can: my city is full of towers of Chinese investor owned condos that were purchased to gain EB5 visas. These visas require a $500k investment in the US, in an economically depressed area. The census tracts were gerrymandered together to make a nice part of town qualify. They were sold with 30 year property tax abatements, and at the end of that period they will likely have to pay something like 50k/yr in taxes, which is likely about what they will be renting for. These condos do not exist to be lived in, but have manufactured a huge bubble in property value because of the visa program. Jared Kushner is a primary investor in this vehicle. These will crash if there are changes to this program or any change that forces more units on the market. Otherwise they'll crash in 25-30 years when nobody wants a timebomb with massive expenses incoming. The other bubble is of course the huge real estate bubble China is creating within its own borders, which rivals the real estate bubble within US borders, both of which are driven by unsustainable low interest rates."
},
{
"docid": "297285",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I believe you are missing a complete aspect of figuring out price points. You completely disregarded how price affects \"\"perceived quality\"\". People generally assume that higher price means higher quality. Pricing too low will give many people the impression that at that price it couldn't be very good, and don't buy the product as a result. Crown Royal became Crown Royal after being a mediocre brand. They didn't change the way they made whiskey, instead they raised the price by 400%. Now it was viewed as a premium product, simply because of it's price. While I don't want to knock your view of Tycoon games, but it's just a game with one point of view. It's not the real world. It's just what a programmer thought would make the game interesting. I sure wouldn't consider it to be some source of great business wisdom. Look at what really happens taking video game consoles and games as an example. They start at a high price point. This makes it prestigious to own. When that price point becomes saturated, meaning everyone that is going to buy at the price already has, they lower the price a little and do the same. Then when everyone that can afford that price has bought one they lower it again. Eventually it gets to a point where almost anyone can afford. This style taps the market for every price point and is much better model than the one you suggest. There are many things that use this model, like car sales. The end of a model year is the time to buy because everyone that was willing to pay the full price already had and they need to move them off the lot to make room for new cars that will have a higher price point. So I don't buy into your theory at all. EDIT: Grammatical error.\""
},
{
"docid": "6356",
"title": "",
"text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view."
},
{
"docid": "327369",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Fed doesn't exactly have a specific schedule when they decide to create a new dollar. Instead, they engage in open market operations, creating and destroying money as is necessary to preserve a certain interest rate for lending and borrowing. It's an ongoing process. When the Fed meets periodically and they see that inflation is getting out of hand, they will raise that rate; when they see that the economy is weak, they will lower it. They change the target rate from time to time, but they seldom tell people exactly what they'll do in advance, aside from them recently saying that rates will remain incredibly low \"\"for an extended period of time\"\". There are people who trade futures contracts based on what they think these rates will be, and the Fed does publish information on what the market thinks the probabilities are. That's probably the closest thing to telling you \"\"how much and when\"\". If you want to know about the size of the money supply, ask the Federal Reserve; you probably want series H.6, Money Stock Measures. For an explanation of what the data series there means, ask Wikipedia: you're probably interested in M2, because that's what actually affects the economy, though M0 is closer to what they actually \"\"print\"\" (currency, bills and coins, and deposits at the central bank). If you're concerned about the actual real value of your dollar dropping, the actual value drop is better understood by looking at either the inflation rate, or an exchange rate against a foreign currency (and depending on what you were hoping to use that dollar for, there are a couple of different inflation rates). The standard inflation rate which measures what happens in your day to day life is the consumer price index, published by the BLS. There are a variety of forecasts of this, but I'm not aware of any official government-agency forecasts.\""
},
{
"docid": "269770",
"title": "",
"text": "Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take. The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%. Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar. There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price? In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way. So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses. There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord. Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation. Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds."
},
{
"docid": "91698",
"title": "",
"text": "Short answer: Structural decline in banking revenue and margins. Longer answer: A combination of regulation and technology has slowly eroded the profitability of banks, just look at historic ROEs. This has been exacerbated by low interest rates which has compressed banking margins via lower interest revenue, particularly affecting Swiss and German banks. Bottom line, investment banking is not as profitable as it was and is likely to become less profitable going forward."
},
{
"docid": "175019",
"title": "",
"text": "You are neglecting a few very important things around real estate transactions in Belgium So in the end a 300K building may cost you more than 340K, let's take some unexpected costs into account and use 350K for remainder of calculation. Even worse if it's newly built (which I doubt) the first percentage is 21% (VAT) instead of 10%. All these costs can be checked on the useful site www.hoeveelkostmijnhuis.be Now, aside from that most banks will and actually have to demand you pay part of all this yourself. So you can't do 5*60K (or 5*70K now). Mostly banks will only finance up to about 90% of the value of the building, so 90% of 300K, which is 270K (5*54K), the other 80K (5*16K) you have to pay yourselves. But it could be the bank goes as low as 80%. Another part to complicate the loan is how much you can pay a month. Since the mortgage crisis they're very strict on this. There are lots of banks that will not allow you to make monthly payments of more than 33% of your monthly income when you are going to live there. This is a nuisance even when buying one house, you want to buy 2. Odds seem low they'll accept high monthly payments because you either need an additional loan or need to pay rent, so don't count on a 5y deal. Now this is all based on a single loan, it will probably be a bit different with multiple loans. However, it is unlikely any bank will accept this, even if all loans are with the same bank. You need to consider the basics of a real-estate loan: A bank trusts you can pay it off and if not they can seize the real-estate hoping to regain their initial investment. It's very hard to seize a complete asset if only one out of 5 loan-takers defected. You could maybe do this with another less restrictive/higher risk type of loan but rates will be a lot higher (think 5-6% instead of 1.5%). And don't underestimate the running costs: for that price and 5 rooms in that city you're likely looking at an older building. Expect lots of cost for maintenance and keeping the building according to code. Also expect costs for repairs (you rent to students...). You'll also have to pay quite a bit of money on insurances and of course on real estate taxes (which are average in Ghent). Also factor in that currently there is not a housing shortage for Ghent students so you might not always have a guaranteed occupation. Also take into account responsibility: if a fire breaks out or the house collapses or a gas leak occurs, you might be sued. It doesn't matter if you're at fault, it's costly and a big nuisance. Simply because you didn't think of any of this: don't do this. It's better to invest in real estate funds. But if you still think you can do better then all the landlords Ghent is riddled with, don't do it as a personal investment. Create a BVBA, put some investment in here (like 10-20K each), approach a bank with a serious business plan to get the rest of the money as a loan (towards a single entity - your BVBA) and get things going. When the money comes in you can either give yourselves a salary or pay out profits on the shares. You may be confused about how rich you can become because we as a nation tend to overestimate the profitability of real estate. It's really not that much better than other investments (otherwise everybody would only invest in real estate funds). There are a few things that skew our vision however:"
},
{
"docid": "88801",
"title": "",
"text": "it depends on you, thats just the point, how risk averse you are determines how wide your risk premium needs to be to as you feel adequately compensate you for the risk you are taking. If I have some money i inherited from grandad and I want to make 15% on it then my required rate is 15% on top of the risk free rate. Thats what I require. Alternatively you could use a historic market rate to to determine the markets required return since on average that should be correct allowing you to sell your asset later to the average market participant. Thats easy for the equity investment. Because you have two different asset classes for your investments you could use different discount rates using the historic market risk premium in each asset's market or you can use the same discount rate for both which makes it easier to compare. In the second case I would discount using the equity required return since the equity investment you are not making is the opportunity cost of your real estate investment. At the end of the day its a value judgment in my opinion and there isn't a right. Your understanding of the economics and from that what is important will inform what you use as a discount rate and that value judgment is kindha where an analyst adds value."
},
{
"docid": "188289",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a \"\"boat load\"\" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not.\""
},
{
"docid": "506743",
"title": "",
"text": "what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?"
},
{
"docid": "35388",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable."
},
{
"docid": "285185",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose \"\"real\"\" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk. One reason bonds perform better than cash equivalents is that you are taking on the risk that if interest rates rise, the fixed payments the bond promises will be worth less, and the face value of your bond will fall. While most bonds are still very Liquid, this means that if you need to sell the bond before it matures, you could lose money. As mentioned earlier, some bonds are riskier than others. Given that you are looking for a low-risk investment, you would want to select a bond that is considered \"\"invesment grade\"\" rather than a riskier \"\"junk\"\" bond. Debt investments are a good choice if you can afford to do without this money for a few years, and you want to balance safety with somewhat better returns than Cash Equivalents. Again though, I would not recommend investing in Debt until you have also built up a separate Emergency Fund. If you do choose to invest in bonds, I recommend that you diversify your risks by investing in a bond fund, rather than in just one company's or government's debt. This will reduce the likelihood that you will experience a catastrophic loss. Ownership Ownership assets includes stocks and other assets such as real estate and precious metals such as gold. While these investments can have high returns, in your situation I would strongly recommend that you not invest in these types of investments, for the following reasons: For these reasons, debt is considered a safer investment than equity for any particular company, government, or the market as a whole. Ownership assets are a good choice for people who have a high Risk Tolerance, long Time Horizon, low Liquidity needs, and will not be bothered by larger potential changes in the value of the investment at any given time. Special Note on Gold I would consider Gold a very risky investment and not a good fit for you at the moment based on what you've shared in your question. Gold is considered \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that people believe that if the economy goes into recession, depression, or collapses entirely, gold will continue to be valuable. In a post-apocalyptic world where paper money became worthless, it is still a good bet that gold will always be considered valuable within human society as a store of value. That being said, the price of gold fluctuates almost entirely based on how bad people think things are going to get. Think about the difference between gold and a company like Coca-Cola. Would you like to own 100% of Coca-Cola? Of course, because you know there is a very good chance that people will continue to spend money all over the world on their products. On the other hand, gold itself produces no products, no sales, no profits, and no cash flow. As such, if you buy gold, you are really making a speculative bet that gold will be in higher demand tomorrow than it is today. You are buying an asset (the gold) rather than part of a company's equity or debt that is designed to throw off payments to its investors in the form of bond payments or dividends. So, if people decide next year that things are improving, it is possible that gold could lose value, given that gold prices are at historically high levels. Gold could be a good choice for someone who has a large, well-diversified investment portfolio, and who is looking for a hedge to protect against inflation and other risks that they have taken on via their other investments. I hope that is helpful - best of luck in your choices. Let us know what you decide!\""
}
] |
3932 | How do historically low interest rates affect real estate prices? | [
{
"docid": "527443",
"title": "",
"text": "Interest rates do generally affect house prices but other factors do too, especially the unemployment rate. However, everything else being equal, when interest rates drop, it makes the borrowing of money cheaper so tends to stimulate the economy and the housing market, increasing the demand for houses and generally causes house prices to increase (especially if the supply of new housing doesn't increase with the demand). When interest rates go up the opposite happens. Usually interest rates go down in order to stimulate a slowing economy and interest rates go up to slow down an overheated economy. Regarding your situation you are able to get a 30 year fixed rate at today’s interest rates (in Australia the longest fixed rate you can get is for 10 years and the rate is usually 1 or 2 percent higher than the standard variable rate. Most people here go for the variable rate or a fixed rate of between 1 to 3 years). This means that even if rates do go up in the future you won't be paying a higher rate, which is a positive for you. You are buying the house to live in so as long as you can keep making the repayments you should not be too worried if the price of the house drops sometime in the future, because if your house has dropped and you want to sell to buy another house to live in, then that house would have also dropped relative to yours (give or take). So your main worry is that rates will go up causing both house prices to fall and unemployment to rise, and you yourself losing your job and eventually your house. It is a risk, but what you need to consider is if you can manage that risk. Firstly, I believe rates won't be going up in the US for a number of years, and if and when they do start going up they will most probably start going up slowly. So you have some time on your side. Secondly, what can you do between now and when interest rates do start going up in a few years: Try to put more saving away to increase your safety net from 6 months to 12 months or more, or make extra repayments into your home loan so that you are ahead if things do go wrong. If you are worried that you could lose your job, what can you do to reduce your chances of losing your job or increasing your chances of getting a new job quickly if you do lose it? Improve your current skills, get new skills, become an invaluable employee, or look at possible opportunities to start your own business. Do your own research on the types of houses you are looking at buying, the more houses you look at the better prepared you will be when the right house at the right price comes along, and the less chance that you will be rushed into buying what might be an overpriced house. So to sum it up; do as much research as you can, have an understanding of what your risks are and how you are going to manage those risks."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "580025",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know Canada very well, but can offer some general points when considering where to park your emergency fund. Savings rates are currently low, but then so is inflation. Always bear in mind that inflation decreases the value of your money, so if you're getting 4% interest and inflation is 2%, you're making 2% gross in real terms. If you're getting 2% and inflation is close to zero, you're actually earning a similar amount, it's just the numbers are going up more slowly. Obviously when and how much tax you pay affects the actual return, it's just worth bearing in mind that low interest and low inflation are actually not that bad a savings environment as they first appear. For an emergency fund the key thing is ease of access, consider keeping some portion of your savings in an instant access account for those emergencies that happen when the banks are closed. In the UK there are various tax-free savings options, I'm guessing Canada has a few too, if so you should explore those options. While these may not have attractive headline rates, you don't pay tax on the interest, this can make them much more competitive (4% tax free is the same as 5% gross if you would have to pay tax at 20%). Normally tax free investments have caps so once you've invested a set amount you can't add anymore. This may be a consideration if you regularly dip into your emergency fund as you might not easily be able to build it up again. My approach is to have about 90% of my \"\"rainy day\"\" fund in easily accessible but tax free savings. This discourages me from spending it unless I really need to. I then keep a slush fund sufficient to cover every day disasters (boiler packing up, needing a hire car for a week etc) in instant access accounts .\""
},
{
"docid": "376839",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\""
},
{
"docid": "519596",
"title": "",
"text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate."
},
{
"docid": "400646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\""
},
{
"docid": "576632",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\""
},
{
"docid": "319568",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\""
},
{
"docid": "441163",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them."
},
{
"docid": "275925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\""
},
{
"docid": "203926",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return."
},
{
"docid": "300297",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\""
},
{
"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": "565441",
"title": "",
"text": "What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate. Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets)."
},
{
"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": "546528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for \"\"first-time home buyer\"\" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K. Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage. It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on.\""
},
{
"docid": "58433",
"title": "",
"text": "Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting. And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors."
},
{
"docid": "61030",
"title": "",
"text": "One way is to think of a REIT as a fully managed portfolio of real estate investments. Risks and returns are averaged across the real estate portfolio and managed by experts, possibly industry leading experts. REITs have a well documented track record you can research - most individuals do not. Many individuals have learned a hard lesson or two while attempting to generate passive income with real estate. Conversely, some people derive a great deal of satisfaction from owning real estate and have a true passion to do so. Plus, if you are expecting interest rates to raise and/or rate of inflation to increase in the next 30 years, you may benefit from the financing aspects of the investment as well. There are some regions/ opportunities that seem to do better than the average REIT a majority of the time, but may not be desirable to you or fit into your budget for various reasons. I'm not sure what your level of experience, knowledge or financial situation , but for everyone considering, there are many additional things to know about investment property compared to a primary residence. A good place to start with REITs is the prospectus of one that interests you. Research their holdings, create a model, or otherwise make a connection with the REIT before clicking buy."
},
{
"docid": "25194",
"title": "",
"text": "The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost. I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis. Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory). As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise. In areas where government is restrictive, such as San Francisco, prices rise sharply. In places where government is more permissive, like Houston, prices remain much more reasonable."
},
{
"docid": "103333",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps I can: my city is full of towers of Chinese investor owned condos that were purchased to gain EB5 visas. These visas require a $500k investment in the US, in an economically depressed area. The census tracts were gerrymandered together to make a nice part of town qualify. They were sold with 30 year property tax abatements, and at the end of that period they will likely have to pay something like 50k/yr in taxes, which is likely about what they will be renting for. These condos do not exist to be lived in, but have manufactured a huge bubble in property value because of the visa program. Jared Kushner is a primary investor in this vehicle. These will crash if there are changes to this program or any change that forces more units on the market. Otherwise they'll crash in 25-30 years when nobody wants a timebomb with massive expenses incoming. The other bubble is of course the huge real estate bubble China is creating within its own borders, which rivals the real estate bubble within US borders, both of which are driven by unsustainable low interest rates."
},
{
"docid": "461483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The ultimate purpose of Case-Schiller is to build contracts that you can use to stop worrying about this, for a price. You or your lender might buy cash settled put options based on the index, and hope that if your home falls in value, the your options become \"\"in the money\"\" to make up the shortfall. The major problem that I can see with this is finding people to take the other side of that contract. Renters would be the primary candidates, but Americans are on average so overweight in real estate that there really isn't anyone underexposed to real estate who would benefit from diversification, and the tax advantage will give people far cheaper avenues address this. Viewed in this light, your question has a sort of obvious answer: Case-Schiller is historical data, and you need to know about the future historical data. Case-Schiller can't do it alone, but you can use futures markets to predict it. Problem you'll have is that the market itself will optimize this temporal trade: if there's a market drop anticipated, the market will charge you more for market drop insurance.\""
}
] |
3934 | Should market based health insurance premiums be factored into 6 months emergency fund savings? | [
{
"docid": "457034",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "205351",
"title": "",
"text": "A CD ladder is an ideal way to hold your emergency funds and eke out a few more percentage points of return. Buy CDs in denominations close to one month's expenses, and ladder 1 per month with 3, 6 or 12 month CDs (depending on your total cash allocation to emergency funds). By using a frequency that matches your available funds, in a best case scenario, you can perpetually roll over (or as your savings increase, extend to a longer frequency). If you have an emergency, you have a month's expenses in cash or cash coming in within a month."
},
{
"docid": "99521",
"title": "",
"text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it."
},
{
"docid": "304804",
"title": "",
"text": "I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:"
},
{
"docid": "483777",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast."
},
{
"docid": "512273",
"title": "",
"text": "I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value. The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%. A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years. Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%. Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear. The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years. In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008. Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%. If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now."
},
{
"docid": "34884",
"title": "",
"text": "My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle."
},
{
"docid": "422218",
"title": "",
"text": "\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\""
},
{
"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": "179702",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An emergency fund is very well defined, both on this site and across the web. An emergency fund is a cash account where you keep money for emergencies so you don't need to take on debt like a loan or credit cards. Car breaks down? emergency fund can help pay that. Lose your job? The emergency fund is there to pay rent and for groceries until you're back up an running. There are several schools of thought on how much money should be in your emergency fund, but it boils down to how high your risk assessment is. Typically, the average is to have 3 months in cash available at all times (like in a savings account). It'd be better to have more, but that's a typical goal. You're also asking about investments in the comments. An emergency fund should be readily available. If you already have $10K in savings, set aside what you would need to cover a few months of bills into a cash-ready savings account, then invest the rest. Investments sometimes take time, or have penalties, if you withdraw them. Additionally, as @JoeTaxpayer so correctly pointed out, getting into the habit of maintaining a separate emergency fund helps protect your other investments from becoming a crutch and instead used to save up for larger things like a house or, especially, retirement. See also: What expenses should be covered by an emergency fund What should I reserve \"\"emergency savings\"\" for? What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into \"\"emergencies\"\" but are not covered by an Emergency Fund? Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?\""
},
{
"docid": "511317",
"title": "",
"text": "The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it. Leave the retirement savings alone. Start saving for house down payment. Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment. Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs. If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying. Most likely it will not. Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate. Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food. And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy. It's a matter of when, not if. Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm. 1000 for a new fridge. 500 for a new water heater. 1200 for washer and dryer. ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to."
},
{
"docid": "334559",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question posted was, \"\"Should I pay off a 0% car loan\"\"? The poster provided a few details: I'm ahead on 0% interest car loan. I don't have to make a payment until October. I currently owe $3,000 and I could pay it all off. Should I do that or leave that money in my savings account that earns 2% interest? The question seems to seek a general rule of thumb for how to behave with smaller debts. And a general rule of thumb could be taken from one of two principles (which seem to be religious camps). The \"\"free money\"\" camp believes that you can invest (even small amounts) of money risk-free and receive high returns, tax free, for zero effort. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" camp believes that you should pay off debts so that you have the freedom to live your life unfettered. Which religion do you prefer? I tend to prefer paying off debts. The \"\"free money\"\" tent wants you to pay the car off over the next 6 months, earning interest. Suppose you can earn 2% interest (.02/12 per month), paying $500 per month for 6 months. So you earn interest on 3000 the first month, 2500, the second month, 2000 the third month, So, are you feeling rich, earning $13.13? How much time did you spending making the 5 additional payments? You could skip coffee once/month and make a bigger difference. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" tent would have you pay off the car. Suppose you change your deductible on the car (or drop collision) to save money, and you will also same time by avoid 5 bill payments, But do you still have enough money in your emergency fund, how do you feel about having less insurance coverage, and did you notice the time savings? We really need more information about the poster's situation. The answer should consider the relevant details of the situation to provide an informed response. Here are questions that would enable a response to address the whole situation. Why are these important? Here are a few reasons why the above might be important.\""
},
{
"docid": "361005",
"title": "",
"text": "As for a formula, there isn't a simple one that you can apply to every type insurance. I'll try my best for a simple answer. Is the event devastating enough to change your lifestyle (looking at life necessities, not wants and nice to haves)? Is the event very likely to happen? Do you have enough emergency funds to cover such an event? Once that emergency fund is utilized, how long does it take you to restore that fund to be ready for the next event? If the event is devastating enough and is very likely to happen and you do not have the cash to cover the event, and/or it would take too long to restore that emergency fund, then it makes sense to consider insurance. Then you would have to examine if the benefit(s) outweight cost of the premium paid for the insurance. If it is pennies of premium for a dollar of benefit, then it makes sense."
},
{
"docid": "114592",
"title": "",
"text": "The best approach depends on how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have no emergency fund Calculate how much you need in order to pay your expenses for 1 month and put at least that amount in a savings account. 3-6 months' worth of expenses is better. Put the remainder towards one credit card. If you have less than 3 months' worth of expenses in your emergency fund Deposit 1 additional month's worth of expenses into your savings account and apply the rest to one card. If you have an emergency fund that you're completely comfortable with Pay $8000 towards one card and $2000 towards the other one. Paying off one card fully gets rid of a bill that you have to think about each month, even if the two cards are otherwise identical."
},
{
"docid": "523127",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two options not mentioned: -No information about your emergency fund in your question. If you don't have 6 months of expenses saved up in a \"\"safe\"\" place (high yield savings account or money market fund) I'd add to that first. -Could you auto-withdraw the amount over six months, then when you can start contributing, contribute twice as much so you are still putting in $18,000 a \"\"year\"\"? The amount you pulled into savings the first 6 months could be used to make up for the extra income coming out after the six months are over. Depending on your income, and since you have the ability to save, it's important not to \"\"lose\"\" access to these tax efficient accounts. And also... -After-tax brokerage account (as mentioned above) is also fine. But if you will use this money for downpayment on a home or something similar within the next five years, I wouldn't recommend investing it. However, having money invested in an after-tax account isn't a terrible thing, yes you'll get taxed when you sell the investments but you have a lot of flexibility to access that money at any time, unlike your retirement accounts.\""
},
{
"docid": "111054",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Between 6 months and a year is normally regarded as the \"\"standard\"\". Plan out what your monthly expenses are and save that money away. One thing to consider is what extras can you give up. If you are currently eating steak and lobster every day can you live with switching to ramen noodles for a period of time? Can you switch from premium cable to basic cable (or cancel it altogether)? Questions like this can greatly impact the amount you have to set aside. I personally have my emergency fund in CDs that mature the first of every month. I know there is less liquidity in this approach but I'm ok with that. My emergency fund is a sum of cash I'll always have so I wanted to reap the benefits of a higher yield. If it comes down to it I can place an expense on a credit card and pay off the credit card when funds become available.\""
},
{
"docid": "578699",
"title": "",
"text": "It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains..."
},
{
"docid": "443960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\""
},
{
"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": "569528",
"title": "",
"text": "Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds."
}
] |
3934 | Should market based health insurance premiums be factored into 6 months emergency fund savings? | [
{
"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": "21468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity. In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses. To me \"\"emergency\"\" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important. The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest. When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile. If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals. My \"\"very illiquid\"\" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my \"\"very liquid\"\" savings account. There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc. I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday. On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution. To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly.\""
},
{
"docid": "75754",
"title": "",
"text": "She seems to be paying an inordinate amount of money for car payments. $850/month is just too high. She may be able to get by on public transit, depending on where she lives, but if not, she needs to look at selling her car and picking up a cheap second-hand vehicle. Public transit would probably save her $750/month. Going to a cheaper car should still save her $300 - $400/month. Next, phone and cable. These are certainly nice, but they are rarely necessities. I do not have cable t.v., for example. I do have a cell phone, and I do have Internet (a requirement of my job), but no cable t.v. She may be able to save some money there. My guess is that she could save $125/month here, though I may be biased on how much it costs to heat a Canadian home in our cold, cold winters. And, of course, the college payment. $900 - $1000 a month? I understand that she is paying this so that your sister can attend college. That's very nice, but it certainly sounds like your mother cannot afford that. On the other hand, if this is repayment of college expenses already incurred, there may be no choice here. Rent, at $1625/month. I have no idea what that gets you in NJ, but perhaps she could rent out a room. It's not inconceivable that she could bring in $1000/month from doing so, though obviously that's going to very much depend on the real estate/rental market where you live. Alternatively, she could move out and move in with someone else and that should certainly get her share of the rent down to $800 - $1000/month or thereabouts, and most likely cut her utility bills, also. I've identified a number of places where she can save money. No doubt, the budget is tight, but I think she's spending on far more than just bare essentials. One thing that concerns me here is that she appears to have no emergency funds and very little for entertainment, other than cable t.v. If at all possible, she needs to cut her budget down so that she is not living paycheque to paycheque and has money to cover, for example, emergency car repairs. And I'd really like to see her have more than $50/month for expenses (which I'm guessing is entertainment). It may not be possible, of course, but I would most definitely say she should not be paying for your sister's college if this places her in such dire financial risk. Easier said than done, of course. Most certainly, I would not even consider cutting the health insurance, by the way. Another approach would be to look at how her expenses will go down when your sister is done school and perhaps cleared up other expenses. It may be worth borrowing from family and friends, knowing that in a year, her expenses will go down $500/month. That makes her budget manageable. Additionally, the debt repayment presumably will finish at some point. The point I'm trying to make is that, in a year, her budget will be just about manageable, and she may be able to get there with smaller trims in the immediate future."
},
{
"docid": "524801",
"title": "",
"text": "With the information you have given, I would say never. Remember the banker is a salesman, and the line of credit is the product. If you don't need to borrow the money for something specific, then you don't need the line of credit in the first place. Even if you did need something I would tell you to save up and pay cash for it. On the tax advantage: There is none, in the US you can deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes but it's not a tax credit it's a tax deductions. Let me explain further: You spend $10,000 on mortgage interest, and you're in the 25% tax bracket. You send the bank $10,000 in return you get at tax savings of $2500. You are still in the hole $7500 You would have been better off not taking out the loan in the first place. On the Emergency Fund: You should have 3 - 6 months of expenses in cash, like a money market account. This money isn't for investing, it's like insurance, and you don't make money on insurance. The last thing you want to do is have to go into debt right in the middle of an emergency. Say you lost your job, the last thing you would want to do is borrow money, right at the time you have no income to pay it back. The bank is under no obligation to maintain you credit limit and can without notice reduce it, they can in most cases call the loan balance due in full with little or no notice as well. Both of those are likely scenarios if the bank were to become aware of the fact that you were unemployed."
},
{
"docid": "137708",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first."
},
{
"docid": "11979",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH."
},
{
"docid": "199971",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "494753",
"title": "",
"text": "An emergency fund of $5000 seems on the low side and I would be worried about spending it down to $2000, that said you want to get out of the car loan. It sounds like you have a little extra disposible income since you think you can rebuild your emergency fund quicker than just the amount you will save from not having a car payment. One option to decrease the hit to your emergency fund is to save aggressively for a month or two to increase your emergency fund by a few hundred dollars and take on some other debt (possibly credit card). You could then pay off the new debt and replenish your emergency fund over a slightly longer period. While some financial planners dislike the idea of an emergency fund while still having high interest debt, to me I would prefer to have $1000 in credit card debt and $3000 in an emergency fund over $0 in credit card debt and $2000 in an emergency fund. Given your time course of 6 months or so to pay off the debt, you might even qualify for a 0% credit card introductory rate (or balance transfer)."
},
{
"docid": "44594",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, you generally want to park your emergency fund somewhere that is \"\"safe\"\", meaning something that is not subject to market fluctuations. Your emergency fund is something you need to be able to count on when times are tough! That rules out things like stock market investments. Secondly, you need to think about how quickly you will need access to the money. If you have an emergency, odds are you don't want to be waiting around for weeks/months/years for the money to become available. This rules out most fixed-term investments (Bonds, traditional CDs, etc). If you are concerned that you will need near-instant access to your emergency money, then you probably want to keep it in a Savings or Money Market Account at the same bank as your checking account. Most banks will let you transfer money between local accounts instantly. Unfortunately, your local bank probably has pitiful interest rates for the Savings/MMA, far below the inflation rate. This means your money will slowly lose value over time. Be prepared to keep contributing to it! For most people, being able to draw the cash from your fund within a few days (<1 week) is sufficient. Worst case, you charge something on your credit card, and then pay down the card when the emergency fund withdrawal arrives. If \"\"money within a few days\"\" is okay for you, there are a few options: Money Market (Mutual) Funds (not to be confused with a Money Market Account) - This is the traditional place to keep an emergency fund. These are investment funds you can buy with a brokerage account. An example of such a fund would be Fidelity Cash Reserves. MMFs are not FDIC insured, so they are not exactly zero risk. However, they are considered extremely safe. They almost never go down in value (only a few times in the past few decades), and when they have, the fund manager or the Federal Govt stepped in to restore the value. They usually offer slightly better return than a local savings account, and are available in taxable and non-taxable varieties. Online High-Yield Savings or Money Market Account - These are a relatively new invention. It's basically a the same thing as what your local bank offers, but it's online-only. No local branch means low overhead, so they offer higher interest rates (2.0% vs 0.5% for your local bank). Some of them used to be over 5% before the economy tanked. Like your local bank, it is FDIC insured. One bit of caution: Some of these accounts have become \"\"gimmicky\"\" lately. They have started to do things like promo rates for a few months, only offering the high interest rate on the first few $K deposited, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn, etc. Be sure to read the details before you open an account! No-Penalty CDs - Certificates of Deposit usually offer a better rate than a Savings Account, but your money is locked up until the CD term is up (e.g. 36 months). If you need to cash out before then, you pay a penalty. Some banks have begun to offer CDs that you can cash out with no penalty at all. These can offer better rates than the savings account. Make sure it really is no-penalty though. Also watch what your options are for slowly adding money over time. This can be an issue if you want to deposit $100 from every paycheck. Rewards Checking Accounts - These are checking accounts that will pay a relatively high interest rate (3% or more) provided you generate enough activity. Most of them will have requirements like you must have direct deposit setup with them, and you must do a minimum number of debit card transactions from the account per month. If you can stay on top of the requirements, these can be a great deal. If you don't stay on top of it, your interest rate usually drops back to something pitiful, though. Personally, we use the Online High-Yield Savings Account for our emergency fund. I'm not going to make a specific recommendation as to which bank to use. The best deal changes almost week to week. Instead, I will say to check out Bankrate.com for a list of savings accounts and CDs that you can sort. The Bank Deals blog is a good place to follow rate changes.\""
},
{
"docid": "43976",
"title": "",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses"
},
{
"docid": "79903",
"title": "",
"text": "Unanticipated unemployment is usually the triggering factor for drawing on an emergency fund. Ask yourself: what happens if I lose my job tomorrow? Or my spouse becomes unemployed? What happens if I become disabled and can't work for x amount of time? Sure, you can discount your chances of needing such a fund if you have free health care. But having health insurance doesn't change the fact that an emergency fund is a good idea. There are many ways to go broke!"
},
{
"docid": "209604",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes factor into your fund the cost of health insurance. You basically have three options when facing a loss of income for 3-6 months: Pre-ACA the COBRA one was the default option many planned for because there was no need to change doctors. Of course many people were shocked how expensive it was compared to just looking at the employees share of the monthly premium. For planning you can do some research into the cost of one of the ACA approved plans in your state. Keeping in mind that the lack of income might qualify you for a subsidy. As to the coverage level, that would depend on your situation and the perceived gap. I have known many people who didn't have to pick COBRA until after the new job started so they knew exactly what they needed to cover and what their bills were during the gap."
},
{
"docid": "59124",
"title": "",
"text": "\"HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account. The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses. If the money is invested it also grows tax free. This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most \"\"high deductible\"\" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required. That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded. Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone.\""
},
{
"docid": "45353",
"title": "",
"text": "You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can."
},
{
"docid": "106810",
"title": "",
"text": "\"J Gruber's consulting reports for the various states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc). * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/jon-gruber-on-the-premiums-in-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAN0TUWS_blog.html ...and the article it addresses (which included some numbers from the reports): * http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/ Note that Gruber has made a whole spectrum of claims (from initially claiming that premiums would go DOWN for a consulting agreement with the Obama administration, to later \"\"revisions\"\" showing significant increases {to varying degrees depending on the individuals specific demographic}), to wit: >Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.” >During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall. >“After the application of tax subsidies, **59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,”** Gruber reported. >The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans. >Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.” Note: Emphasis added. Note 2: To begin with, an \"\"average\"\" increase of 31% qualifies as \"\"significant\"\" (hell, it's a lot more than merely \"\"significant\"\", that's a HUGE increase); and secondly, that is an AVERAGE, meaning that while some of the people in that \"\"59%\"\" will probably not see such a high increase, a fairly large segment {and per the provisions of the Act versus current premium calculation methods, we KNOW these will be \"\"young healthy singles\"\", and especially males} will face increases that are substantially HIGHER than 31%, and in fact will probably be in the nature of double or triple previous premiums {as would be required in order to meet another provision of the act, that highest premiums for older/sicker pool members cannot be higher than 3x that of the youngest/lowest tier premiums -- and if the company is to balance the books, it can only \"\"bring down\"\" the one end if it makes a compensating increase at the other end.}) None of that is \"\"rocket science\"\" and it is entirely predictable. (The only things that would be \"\"odd\"\" would be that anyone should expect anything different, and that Gruber's initial claims of across the board lower costs were ever accepted in the first place.)\""
},
{
"docid": "443960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\""
},
{
"docid": "67500",
"title": "",
"text": "Fifteen thousand dollars is not a whole lot of cash. It should probably be kept liquid. To that end, savings accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) are typically used. (There are also money market funds, but I am not sure that makes sense once trading costs are figured into the equation.) I would set some of that money aside, for an emergency fund. (Start with at least 6 months of realistic living expenses and also consider a fund for unforeseen emergencies.) I would consider using 2-3 thousand to setup a retirement account. The rest, I would place into CD ladders, so that it is somewhat accessible."
},
{
"docid": "440940",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house. While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful."
},
{
"docid": "422218",
"title": "",
"text": "\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\""
},
{
"docid": "34884",
"title": "",
"text": "My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle."
}
] |
3934 | Should market based health insurance premiums be factored into 6 months emergency fund savings? | [
{
"docid": "209604",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes factor into your fund the cost of health insurance. You basically have three options when facing a loss of income for 3-6 months: Pre-ACA the COBRA one was the default option many planned for because there was no need to change doctors. Of course many people were shocked how expensive it was compared to just looking at the employees share of the monthly premium. For planning you can do some research into the cost of one of the ACA approved plans in your state. Keeping in mind that the lack of income might qualify you for a subsidy. As to the coverage level, that would depend on your situation and the perceived gap. I have known many people who didn't have to pick COBRA until after the new job started so they knew exactly what they needed to cover and what their bills were during the gap."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "520430",
"title": "",
"text": "The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381. Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion. $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest. I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well. I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc. You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended. To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now. (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well. I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.)"
},
{
"docid": "286656",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm going to answer your questions out of order. Emergency fund: Depending on how conservative you are and how much insurance you have, you may want anywhere from 3-12 months of your expenses on hand. I like to keep 6 months worth liquid in a \"\"high-yield\"\" savings account. For your current expenses that would be $24k, but when this transaction completes, you will have a mortgage payment (which usually includes home-owners insurance and property taxes in addition to your other expenses) so a conservative guess might be an additional $3k/month, or a total of $42k for six months of expenses. So $40-$100k for an emergency fund depending on how conservative you are personally. Down payment: You should pay no less than 20% down ($150k) on a loan that size, particularly since you can afford it. My own philosophy is to pay as much as I can and pay the loan off as soon as possible, but there are valid reasons not to do that. If you can get a higher rate of return from that money invested elsewhere you may wish to keep a mortgage longer and invest the other money elsewhere. Mortgage term: A 15-year loan will generally get you the best interest rate available. If you paid $400k down, financing $350k at a 3.5% rate, your payment would be about $2500 on a 15-year loan. That doesn't include property taxes and home-owners insurance, but without knowing precisely where you live, I have no idea whether those would keep you inside the $3000 of additional monthly home expenses I mentioned above when discussing the emergency fund. That's how I would divide it up. I'd also pay more than the $2500 toward the mortgage if I could afford to, though I've always made that decision on a monthly basis when drawing up the budget for the next month.\""
},
{
"docid": "523127",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two options not mentioned: -No information about your emergency fund in your question. If you don't have 6 months of expenses saved up in a \"\"safe\"\" place (high yield savings account or money market fund) I'd add to that first. -Could you auto-withdraw the amount over six months, then when you can start contributing, contribute twice as much so you are still putting in $18,000 a \"\"year\"\"? The amount you pulled into savings the first 6 months could be used to make up for the extra income coming out after the six months are over. Depending on your income, and since you have the ability to save, it's important not to \"\"lose\"\" access to these tax efficient accounts. And also... -After-tax brokerage account (as mentioned above) is also fine. But if you will use this money for downpayment on a home or something similar within the next five years, I wouldn't recommend investing it. However, having money invested in an after-tax account isn't a terrible thing, yes you'll get taxed when you sell the investments but you have a lot of flexibility to access that money at any time, unlike your retirement accounts.\""
},
{
"docid": "214194",
"title": "",
"text": "We put our fund in a local credit union that we only use for the emergency fund. We have a savings account that sweeps all funds into a 6 month CD that automatically renews upon maturity. We pretty much don't think about it, and make a deposit with our excess savings after we pay our property taxes in January and school taxes in September. Why? When my wife and I set it up the emergency fund, the purpose is to have a cushion against emergencies, not earning money or having convenient access. We wanted access to the money to be onerous enough that neither one of us could pull money out of without calling someone or driving over to the branch. We even opted not to take an ATM card. In the event that we need the money, we can terminate the CD early and pay a 3 month interest penalty. With $10k, that translates to about $25."
},
{
"docid": "443960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\""
},
{
"docid": "569528",
"title": "",
"text": "Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds."
},
{
"docid": "205351",
"title": "",
"text": "A CD ladder is an ideal way to hold your emergency funds and eke out a few more percentage points of return. Buy CDs in denominations close to one month's expenses, and ladder 1 per month with 3, 6 or 12 month CDs (depending on your total cash allocation to emergency funds). By using a frequency that matches your available funds, in a best case scenario, you can perpetually roll over (or as your savings increase, extend to a longer frequency). If you have an emergency, you have a month's expenses in cash or cash coming in within a month."
},
{
"docid": "411454",
"title": "",
"text": "For the specific example you gave, a CD with a 0.05% rate of return, I'd shop around some more, that's a VERY low rate of return. A more realistic one would be 0.5%, depending on the terms. As has been mentioned, CDs are good when you need to preserve your capital. What might be a situation for that? They are great for Emergency funds, which you should always have a reasonable amount of cash in. I have a set up 3 CDs with 12 month terms, each carrying about 30% of my emergency savings. The remaining 10% I keep in a standard savings account, for quick access dealing with a short term emergency. The 3 are spaced about 4 months apart, so that I'm always within 4 months of having one come to term. They have a 3 month penalty if I withdraw early, but based on the fact that I have never had to touch more than 10% of my emergency savings, I'm perfectly okay with that. What about more long term savings? Well, it depends on what your timeframe is for using the money. If it's more than 10 years, and you are willing to risk losing some of it, then by all means invest in a higher risk higher reward investment. If it's only a few years, maybe a bond fund is something that would be better. And if you really need to preserve the money, then a CD can be great too."
},
{
"docid": "99521",
"title": "",
"text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it."
},
{
"docid": "490223",
"title": "",
"text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all."
},
{
"docid": "483777",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast."
},
{
"docid": "261697",
"title": "",
"text": "I would say it depends on what your long term plans and goals are. If you are trying to get rid of credit cards and never use them again, then I would say to keep $1000 as an emergency fund, pay the cards off and then save to build your emergency fund up to 3-6 months expenses. However, if you are just going to run the balances back up, I would save save 3-6 months expenses out of the money you just received and pay down the higher interest cards with what is left over."
},
{
"docid": "60508",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The following is from Wikipedia - Term life insurance (with very minor editing) Because term life insurance is a pure death benefit, its primary use is to provide coverage of financial responsibilities, for the insured. Such responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, consumer debt, dependent care, college education for dependents, funeral costs, and mortgages. Term life insurance is generally chosen in favor of permanent life insurance because it is usually much less expensive (depending on the length of the term). Many financial advisors or other experts commonly recommend term life insurance as a means to cover potential expenses until such time that there are sufficient funds available from savings to protect those whom the insurance coverage was intended to protect. For example, an individual might choose to obtain a policy whose term expires near his or her retirement age based on the premise that, by the time the individual retires, he or she would have amassed sufficient funds in retirement savings to provide financial security for their dependents. This suggests the questions \"\"why do you have this policy?\"\" also \"\"how many term life policies do you need?\"\" or \"\"how much insurance do you need?\"\" Clearly you will be better off investing the premiums in the market. Your beneficiaries may be better off either way (depends when you die and to a lesser extent on market performance). If you are not able to retire now but expect to be able to later, you should strongly consider having sufficient insurance to provide income replacement for your spouse. This is a fairly common why.\""
},
{
"docid": "295155",
"title": "",
"text": "I would disagree with your analysis. To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses. Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy. You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds. For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles. I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market. After that you are free to invest all your money. Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals."
},
{
"docid": "265477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on what your plans for the future are.. Taking out a loan is not a bad thing if it is at a good rate and under good terms and you are sure you can handle the payments. If you buy the car with cash you may be giving up the opportunity to later get a great rate on that $8k. However, you are probably not utilizing that $20k to make as much interest as you'd then be paying if you did take the $8k on loan. Since you say \"\"house fund\"\" I assume you are saving to make a down payment on a new house. If you plan to buy that house within the next 6 months the hard pulls on your credit report from applying for the car loan will probably ding your credit score for the next 6 months which might cost you on your mortgage rate. However, if you don't plan to buy for a few more years and if you've never had a car payment before then the auto loan would actually be adding diversity to your credit history and in the long run would help your score. Another factor to consider is the loan-to-value ratio you are shooting for. LTV affects the interest rate, requirements for private mortgage insurance, etc.. Mortgage rates are at an all-time low and lower than auto-rates, so depending on the terms of the house purchase that $8k might be better spent on the car than the house. In short, if you want to buy the house soon (rates are loooow, market is a buyer's market), and you need that $8k to get a better mortgage rate or prevent you from being required to buy PMI you should probably put it toward the house. Otherwise you should probably put it toward the car. Last piece of advice. If you absolutely must buy a house and a car in the same short time-frame, do them both on the same day so that your credit score is not dinged before applying for one or the other. With mortgages this may be difficult considering the longer closing procedures, but try to time it so that your credit is getting checked by the mortgage broker and the auto lender on the same day.\""
},
{
"docid": "285812",
"title": "",
"text": "As others have noted, you can do better than a checking or savings account. If you're going to invest emergency money, the vehicle you put it into should be: Liquid - Wherever you put it, you should be able to quickly cash it out. Highly liquid exchange traded products are good for this. Low volatility/drawdowns - If you need at least 6 months of your paycheck to cover you in the event of an emergency, you don't want to park it in a portfolio that can potentially lose 30% value. Insured - Your investments should have SIPC coverage (protection against losses resulting from failure on part of broker). Moderate/Steady Growth - If the emergency fund doesn't grow, you'll need to continually pump money into it. My 'steady growth' portfolio is majorly allocated to fixed income. Within that, a major portion is allocated to high yielding instruments. Over the past 10 years, it's seen at least a 7% annualized return."
},
{
"docid": "59124",
"title": "",
"text": "\"HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account. The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses. If the money is invested it also grows tax free. This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most \"\"high deductible\"\" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required. That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded. Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone.\""
},
{
"docid": "137708",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first."
},
{
"docid": "199971",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\""
}
] |
3934 | Should market based health insurance premiums be factored into 6 months emergency fund savings? | [
{
"docid": "201769",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "304804",
"title": "",
"text": "I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:"
},
{
"docid": "443960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\""
},
{
"docid": "511317",
"title": "",
"text": "The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it. Leave the retirement savings alone. Start saving for house down payment. Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment. Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs. If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying. Most likely it will not. Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate. Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food. And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy. It's a matter of when, not if. Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm. 1000 for a new fridge. 500 for a new water heater. 1200 for washer and dryer. ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to."
},
{
"docid": "114592",
"title": "",
"text": "The best approach depends on how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have no emergency fund Calculate how much you need in order to pay your expenses for 1 month and put at least that amount in a savings account. 3-6 months' worth of expenses is better. Put the remainder towards one credit card. If you have less than 3 months' worth of expenses in your emergency fund Deposit 1 additional month's worth of expenses into your savings account and apply the rest to one card. If you have an emergency fund that you're completely comfortable with Pay $8000 towards one card and $2000 towards the other one. Paying off one card fully gets rid of a bill that you have to think about each month, even if the two cards are otherwise identical."
},
{
"docid": "4044",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc."
},
{
"docid": "550581",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to the two options in your question - pay off the entire loan, depleting your emergency fund; or continue as you are today - there is a third, middle-ground option that might be worth considering. Since you currently have an emergency fund, zero credit card debt, and you stated \"\"we can afford these expenses\"\", I think I'd be correct to assume that you're currently making regular contributions to either the emergency fund itself, or to another savings account, etc. Temporarily stop making those contributions, and divert those funds to make larger payments towards the upside-down loan. The additional amount will all be applied to the loan principal, reducing the interest you'll have to pay, but you'll avoid the risk of depleting the emergency fund. Additionally, the insurance premium may possibly be avoided, as in many places in the world it's possible to de-register the car (for example, in California, USA, you can submit an affidavit of Non-Use) then terminate the insurance on it. However, the car will likely have to be parked off-street (or in a location such as a private road governed by rules that do not include legal registration requirements).\""
},
{
"docid": "562934",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows."
},
{
"docid": "205351",
"title": "",
"text": "A CD ladder is an ideal way to hold your emergency funds and eke out a few more percentage points of return. Buy CDs in denominations close to one month's expenses, and ladder 1 per month with 3, 6 or 12 month CDs (depending on your total cash allocation to emergency funds). By using a frequency that matches your available funds, in a best case scenario, you can perpetually roll over (or as your savings increase, extend to a longer frequency). If you have an emergency, you have a month's expenses in cash or cash coming in within a month."
},
{
"docid": "34884",
"title": "",
"text": "My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle."
},
{
"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": "213887",
"title": "",
"text": "I keep several savings accounts. I use an online-only bank that makes it very easy to open a new account in about 2 minutes. I keep the following accounts: Emergency Fund with 2 months of expenses. I pretend this money doesn't even exist. But if something happened that I needed money right away, I can get it. 6 6-month term CDs, with one maturing every month, each with 1 month's worth of expenses. This way, every month, I'll have a CD that matures with the money I would need that month if I lose my job or some other emergency that prevents me from working. You won't make as much interest on the 6-month term, but you'll have cash every month if you need it. Goal-specific accounts: I keep an account that I make a 'car payment' into every month so I'll have a down-payment saved when I'm ready to buy a car, and I'm used to making a payment, so it's not an additional expense if I need a loan. I also keep a vacation account so when it's time to take the family to Disneyland, I know how much I can budget for the trip. General savings: The 'everything else' account. When I just NEED to buy a new LCD TV on Black Friday, that's where I go without touching my emergency funds."
},
{
"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": "578699",
"title": "",
"text": "It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains..."
},
{
"docid": "512273",
"title": "",
"text": "I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value. The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%. A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years. Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%. Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear. The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years. In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008. Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%. If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now."
},
{
"docid": "61093",
"title": "",
"text": "The main factor should be what sorts of emergencies you are trying and also need to protect yourself against. Overall I'd say at least 6-9 months of expenses, adjusted for the above factors. More might be better but I'd probably keep that in a different type of investment vehicle, mainly because it doesn't really need to be accessible instantaneously like your normal emergency fund would need to be."
},
{
"docid": "75754",
"title": "",
"text": "She seems to be paying an inordinate amount of money for car payments. $850/month is just too high. She may be able to get by on public transit, depending on where she lives, but if not, she needs to look at selling her car and picking up a cheap second-hand vehicle. Public transit would probably save her $750/month. Going to a cheaper car should still save her $300 - $400/month. Next, phone and cable. These are certainly nice, but they are rarely necessities. I do not have cable t.v., for example. I do have a cell phone, and I do have Internet (a requirement of my job), but no cable t.v. She may be able to save some money there. My guess is that she could save $125/month here, though I may be biased on how much it costs to heat a Canadian home in our cold, cold winters. And, of course, the college payment. $900 - $1000 a month? I understand that she is paying this so that your sister can attend college. That's very nice, but it certainly sounds like your mother cannot afford that. On the other hand, if this is repayment of college expenses already incurred, there may be no choice here. Rent, at $1625/month. I have no idea what that gets you in NJ, but perhaps she could rent out a room. It's not inconceivable that she could bring in $1000/month from doing so, though obviously that's going to very much depend on the real estate/rental market where you live. Alternatively, she could move out and move in with someone else and that should certainly get her share of the rent down to $800 - $1000/month or thereabouts, and most likely cut her utility bills, also. I've identified a number of places where she can save money. No doubt, the budget is tight, but I think she's spending on far more than just bare essentials. One thing that concerns me here is that she appears to have no emergency funds and very little for entertainment, other than cable t.v. If at all possible, she needs to cut her budget down so that she is not living paycheque to paycheque and has money to cover, for example, emergency car repairs. And I'd really like to see her have more than $50/month for expenses (which I'm guessing is entertainment). It may not be possible, of course, but I would most definitely say she should not be paying for your sister's college if this places her in such dire financial risk. Easier said than done, of course. Most certainly, I would not even consider cutting the health insurance, by the way. Another approach would be to look at how her expenses will go down when your sister is done school and perhaps cleared up other expenses. It may be worth borrowing from family and friends, knowing that in a year, her expenses will go down $500/month. That makes her budget manageable. Additionally, the debt repayment presumably will finish at some point. The point I'm trying to make is that, in a year, her budget will be just about manageable, and she may be able to get there with smaller trims in the immediate future."
},
{
"docid": "328076",
"title": "",
"text": "The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be."
},
{
"docid": "569528",
"title": "",
"text": "Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds."
},
{
"docid": "440940",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house. While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful."
}
] |
3995 | I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake? | [
{
"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": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "489959",
"title": "",
"text": "In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account. I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you. If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting. Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes. For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever. After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose. I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose. When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does. I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation."
},
{
"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": "121230",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are some things you want to look at for evaluating a bank or credit union for your regular spending accounts: Convenience. Do they have a branch in a convenient location for you? Do they have no-fee ATMs near you? Website. If you are like me, you will spend more time on the bank's website than you do inside a branch. Some bank's websites are great, some are terrible. Unfortunately, this is generally difficult to evaluate until you actually get an account. You want a website that is easy to use. It should allow you to easily move money between your accounts, get instant lists of transactions, show you your monthly statements, and have a billpay feature that works well. If you use budgeting software that interfaces online with your bank, you want to ensure that it works well with your bank. Fee structure. Some banks will nickel-and-dime you to death. Watch out for minimum balance fees and ATM fees. Banks and credit unions usually have a fee schedule page on their website that lists every fee they charge, making it easy to compare different banks. I would not be very concerned about interest rates for savings. Currently, all savings accounts have a universally terrible interest rate. Therefore, I wouldn't base my bank choice on the interest rate. Sure, one might offer double the interest rate of another, but double \"\"next-to-nothing\"\" is still \"\"next-to-nothing.\"\" When you accumulate enough savings that you want to start maximizing your earnings, you can look for a better rate at another bank to move your savings to, and you can keep your checking account at the bank with the best convenience and fee structure. In my limited experience, I have had better luck with credit unions than with banks when it comes to fees.\""
},
{
"docid": "30142",
"title": "",
"text": "I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool."
},
{
"docid": "236177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\""
},
{
"docid": "200248",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\""
},
{
"docid": "558628",
"title": "",
"text": "There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund."
},
{
"docid": "75097",
"title": "",
"text": "From Chase FAQ it looks like this is a regular ACH transfer. ACH transactions can be reversed under certain conditions. I haven't been able to find some authoritative link on this, so I suggest this (thenest.com budgeting blog) instead: Allowed Reasons You can have ACH transactions reversed for one of three reasons under the rules: wrong money amount, wrong account or duplicated transactions. For example, if your mortgage bill is for $756.00, but your lender's website messes up and you're charged $856.00, the transaction is reversible it because it's the wrong dollar amount. If the website charges you $756.00 twice, the second duplicated transaction is reversible. Reversal Procedures You might have to bring a mistake to the originator's attention to get it fixed. Only the originator -- the person or company taking or sending money -- can ask for a reversal. For example, if you have a transaction for a wrong dollar amount from your lender's website, the originator is the lender. An originator is supposed to send the reversal within 24 hours of the error's discovery and within five banking days of the original transaction. When a reversal is required because of a wrong amount or wrong account, the originator must send a correcting entry with the right information. Bank's Responsibility A bank should honor an ACH reversal, even if it means debiting a customer's account again because of a correcting transaction. However, the bank doesn't have to debit your account if you closed it or the new transaction would overdraw it. Your bank does have to tell you if a correcting entry is going to take money out of your account, but the bank doesn't need your permission to do it."
},
{
"docid": "472924",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \"\"agnostic\"\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\""
},
{
"docid": "78367",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two or three issues here. One is, how quickly can you get cash out of your investments? If you had an unexpected expense, if you suddenly needed more cash than you have on hand, how long would it take to get money out of your Scott Trade account or wherever it is? I have a TD Ameritrade account which is pretty similar, and it just takes a couple of days to get money out. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when I literally needed a bunch of cash TODAY with no advance warning. What sudden bills is one likely to have? A medical bill, perhaps. But hey, just a few weeks ago I had to go to the emergency room with a medical problem, and it's not like they demanded cash on the table before they'd help me. I just got the bill, maybe 3 weeks after the event. I've never decided to move and then actually moved 2 days later. These things take SOME planning. Etc. Second, how much risk are you willing to tolerate? If you have your money in the stock market, the market could go down just as you need the cash. That's not even a worst case scenario, extreme scenario. After all, if the economy gets bad, the stock market could go down, and the same fact could result in your employer laying you off. That said, you could reduce this risk by keeping some of your money in a low-risk investment, like some high-quality bonds. Third, you want to have cash to cover the more modest, routine expenses. Like make sure you always have enough cash on hand to pay the rent or mortgage, buy food, and so on. And fourth, you want to keep a cushion against bookkeeping mistakes. I've had twice in my life that I've overdrawn a checking account, not because I was broke, but because I messed up my records and thought I had more money in the account than I really did. It's impossible to give exact numbers without knowing a lot about your income and expenses. But for myself: I keep a cushion of $1,000 to $1,5000 in my checking account, on top of all regular bills that I know I'll have to pay in the next month, to cover modest unexpected expenses and mistakes. I pay most of my bills by credit card for convenience --and pay the balance in full when I get the bill so I don't pay interest -- so I don't need a lot of cushion. I used to keep 2 to 3 months pay in an account invested in bonds and very safe stocks, something that wouldn't lose much value even in bad times. Since my daughter started college I've run this down to less than 1 months pay, and instead of replacing that money I'm instead putting my spare money into more general stocks, which is admittedly riskier. So between the two accounts I have a little over 2 months pay, which I think is low, but as I say, I'm trying to get my kids through college so I've run down my savings some. I think if I had more than 6 months pay in easily-liquidated assets, then unless I expected to need a bunch of cash for something, buying a new house or some such, I'd be transferring that to a retirement account with tax advantages."
},
{
"docid": "247371",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\""
},
{
"docid": "220559",
"title": "",
"text": "Something like this sort of thing happened to me but with Chase bank. The county made a mistake on our taxes and forgot to give us the right deductions and we got a whopping high property tax bill. Since we did have an escrow account the bank just paid the taxes and raised our mortgage by a nearly unaffordable 60% or so even though we called the bank and told them not to pay the tax bill as it was being disputed. By the time we got the tax issues sorted out Chase refused to adjust the mortgage. The only way we were able to get out of it was to refinance with another bank and opt out of the escrow account and handle taxes on our own, which fixed the whole problem. It seemed an awful lot like an attempt to force us into a foreclosure. If we didn't have the money to refinance we would have barely been able to afford the mortgage payment. Why they would want to do that I have no idea. It really sucked though."
},
{
"docid": "583803",
"title": "",
"text": "In the US bank or credit union checking, savings, CD's are insured through FDIC or NCUA. The coverage is for $250,000. This limit can be increased by having multiple accounts. You, your spouse, and a Joint account with your spouse, are considered 3 different accounts, so you could have $750K coverage. IRA funds are considered a separate pot of money for insurance coverage. Here is an explanation from NCUA and FDIC. There is no safety difference between savings and checking. There are differences regarding minimum balances, maximum number of transactions per month, and fees. But they are equally safe."
},
{
"docid": "246738",
"title": "",
"text": "According to HMRC it seems that if you overpay, then at least part of the interest generated by that ISA is taxable (emphasis mine): If, by mistake, you put more than £10,680 into your ISAs in a tax year, the excess payments are invalid, and you are not entitled to any tax relief on investments purchased with the excess payments. You should not try to correct this mistake yourself. Instead, you should call the ISA Helpline and explain the problem to them. They will advise you what action you need to take. However, as AlexMuller pointed out, HMRC also states (in section 6.1 here) that the ISA Manager (ie. the bank/building society) should not allow you to overpay. Managers’ systems must ensure that ... no more than the cash ISA subscription limit can be subscribed to a cash ISA in a tax year and that no more than the overall subscription limit can be subscribed to a stocks and shares ISA in a tax year. As to what an individual ISA Manager would do should you attempt to over-pay, I imagine it would vary from Manager to Manager. ING Direct, for example, has the following policy (Taken from Section 12.5 here): ...f you send us a payment for an amount which would take you over the ISA investment limit under the ISA Regulations, we will send the excess above the investment limit, or, if you sent us the payment by cheque, the whole of that payment, back to you."
},
{
"docid": "124630",
"title": "",
"text": "In the United States taxes on the sale of a principal residence are based on the difference between the sale price and the cost of the home. Assuming you meet the requirements you can shelter 250,000 or 500,000 of gains from the sale of your principal residence. This calculation is not related to the loan balance. The basic equation is sales price minus purchase price. It get a little more complex because some costs to purchase and sell the home are included in the calculation, or if you made renovations to the house that will increase your costs and decrease your gains. Trying to decrease the loan balance just before selling the house would just be paying yourself that money at the settlement table. It could save you some money on interest between now and settlement but emptying your bank account to save a few bucks doesn't seem worth it. I would also prefer to have the money in the bank to pay for some expenses that will popup getting the house sold, you moving, and the settlement date."
},
{
"docid": "39783",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them."
},
{
"docid": "131164",
"title": "",
"text": "As the college education is very costly, I want to send USD 25,000 to him as a gift. What is the procedure and what Indian and American tax laws are involved ? This transaction will be treated as gift. As per Indian law you can transfer unlimited amount to your close relative [son-in-law/grandchildren/daughter/etc]. In US the gift tax is on donor, as you are no US citizen you are not bound by this. As your son-in-law/grandchildren are US citizens, there is no tax to them. Your son-in-law may still need to declare this in Form 3250 or such relevant returns. Under the Liberalized remittance scheme [Refer Q3], you can transfer upto USD 250,000 per year. There maybe some forms that you need to fill. Ask your Bank. If the amount is more than USD 25,000 a CA certificate along with 15CA, 15CB need to be filled. Essentially the CA certifies that taxes on the funds being transferred have already been paid to Govt of India. Can I send money to him directly or to his father who is submitting tax returns in USA? This does not make any difference in India. Someone else may answer this question if it makes a difference in US."
},
{
"docid": "291686",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd think the first question here is: Did they overpay you? And if so, what were the circumstances? At one extreme: If you lied on your timesheet and said you worked 50 hours when really you only worked 40, and they paid you for 50 hours, and now they've figured out that you didn't really work those overtime hours, then yes, they overpaid you and you owe them the money. Or if you reported your time accurately but they made an honest mistake, like you worked 30 hours but for whatever reason they paid you for 40, then they really did overpay you and you owe them the money. Or if a check was just mis-printed because their computer system screwed up or something, sorry, you don't get to keep the money. Yes, we all have fantasies about the bank accidentally adding a million dollars to our balance and somehow we get to keep the money, but sorry, it doesn't work that way in real life. If there's been a mistake, once they figure out the mistake, you have to give the money back. If it's something more complicated, it might be debatable. If you're not sure what the details are, find out the details and investigate. Do you have any evidence that what they are saying is not true? How much money is involved? If we're talking $20, it's not worth going to court over. You'd have to pay a lawyer way more than the $20. A court MIGHT order the company to pay your court costs if you won, but they might not. And if you lost, you could have to pay their court costs, which could be way more than any possible gain. There are times when it's better to just eat the loss and get on with your life. Of course, the same could be said from the other side: If the amount of money is small and the case is debatable and you refuse to hand over the cash, they may just give up figuring it's not worth the trouble. I don't know that I'd want to gamble on that, though. If there is serious money involved, at least several thousand dollars, then it could make sense to talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case."
}
] |
3995 | I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake? | [
{
"docid": "278734",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "390480",
"title": "",
"text": "So, if it was a personal account, and not an investment in Refco, you should have been insured by the SIPC for $500,000 for your securities, and $100,000 or more for cash. If you had all your money invested in Refco, you weren't diversified, which is one of the first rules of investment. It's not fun to learn this the hard way, I know from experience, but you should never invest more in any one stock than you can afford to lose. Learn from your mistakes rather than blame the big guys vs little guys."
},
{
"docid": "305907",
"title": "",
"text": "To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts."
},
{
"docid": "14349",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger."
},
{
"docid": "336217",
"title": "",
"text": "We've been in this situation for about 10 years now. We don't have to send money back to Canada very often, but when we do, we typically just write a US$ check/cheque and send it to a relative back home to cash for us. We've found that the Canadian banks are much more familiar with US currency than vice versa, and typically have better exchange rates than many of the other options. That said, we haven't done an exhaustive search for the best deal. If you haven't left Canada yet, you might consider opening up a US funds account at the same bank as your Canadian funds account if the bank will allow you to transfer money between the accounts. I haven't priced out that option, so I don't know what the exchange rate would look like there. Also, you didn't ask about this, but if you have any RRSP accounts in Canada, make sure they're with a broker that is licensed to accept trades from US-based customers. Otherwise, you won't be able to move your money around to different investments within the RRSP. Once you're resident in the US, you will no longer be able to open any new accounts in Canada, but you will be able to maintain the ones you already have."
},
{
"docid": "8020",
"title": "",
"text": "Compared to a regular after tax savings account, there are several downsides of HsA: 1) many many fees by the bank - account opening fee, monthly maintenance fee, etc, up to $70/year 2) early withdrawal fee of now 20% of all the withdrawn monies. If you are in the 35% tax bracket, this will cost you %55 ---- they take more than half of your money if you make a mistake and must withdraw early for non-med purposes. There is no such downsides with regular savings accounts that are after tax. For more, see http://www.myvirtualschool.com/video/830/Attention:-Five-Secret-HSA-Account-Traps"
},
{
"docid": "163353",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\""
},
{
"docid": "247371",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\""
},
{
"docid": "362922",
"title": "",
"text": ">eventually, the US will lose money until the point where production in the US is cheap enough to bring it back. Not if they raise taxes. I recently saw a mention of a research job in psychology that came to a conclusion more or less like this: given the choice of getting $100,000 while their neighbor got $250,000 and the alternative of each getting $50,000, most Americans chose the second option. They'd rather get less for themselves rather than let their neighbor get more than they did. That's why so many Americans favor higher taxes on the corporations. It doesn't matter if the corporations become unable to invest in more jobs, the important thing is not to let the corporations make money easily."
},
{
"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": "560622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\""
},
{
"docid": "89457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the answer depends very much on where you are. I believe the other answer covers north america. On contrast, in (continental) Europe, giving the account and bank number (IBAN and BIC) is a (the most) common way to enable someone to send money to you. E.g. in Germany, you need much more than account number and bank number to withdraw money: To \"\"push\"\" money to another account (wire transfer from your account to someone who gave you the other account + bank numbers), you either have to hand-sign a certain form, or (online) certain credentials (e.g. login & password / PIN + TAN) are needed. I.e. for defrauding you, the other would need to get your online credentials (for mTAN also your mobile phone, for chipTAN a TAN generator of your bank [easy] and your bank card, for (i)TAN your TAN list) or fake your signature. There are also ways to allow someone to pull money from your account, see e.g. direct debit For that you sign that the other side is allowed to withdraw specified amounts of money (at specified dates). This is either between you and the other (i.e. your bank cannot check and doesn't reject withdrawals that are not authorized). However, the other side needs to have signed a contract with their bank that they'll only try to withdraw money they're entitled to. or you sign such a thing with your bank (then they do know whether the other side is allowed to withdraw money, and you can tell the bank that you won't accept any further withdrawals from XYZ). In the first case, the withdrawal technically still needs your approval. In order not to create a huge risk of fraud, the rejecting here is really easy: If you tell your bank that you reject the payment, The practical rule is that the payment is approved if you didn't reject within the first 6 weeks after the bank sent the account statement. In other words, until 4 1/2 months after the withdrawal (in case you have a bank that does only quarterly account statements), the one to get the money cannot be really sure that he actually has the money. I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe someone else can comment/edit) that these two possibilities are also what is used with debit card payments (EC/Maestro card - these are much more common here than real credit card payments). -- end of Germany specific example --\""
},
{
"docid": "236177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\""
},
{
"docid": "508953",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\""
},
{
"docid": "22268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\""
},
{
"docid": "200248",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\""
},
{
"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": "307083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\""
},
{
"docid": "244362",
"title": "",
"text": "Within the bank or group of banks owned by the same company the account number is unique. What is unique is the bank id number and account number combination. If the bank ID number doesn't match a banking institution, the transaction will not be completed. If you are unlucky and your mistake in writing the bank id number does match a bank, you have to hope the account number doesn't match. The name's do not have to match. Checks have been deposited with incorrect spelling, nick names vs formal names. Mr. and Mrs ..."
},
{
"docid": "98727",
"title": "",
"text": "This is referred to as an HSA Mistaken Distribution. An HSA mistaken distribution occurs when you take a distribution and later find out that it is not for a qualified medical expense. For example, this could occur if you accidentally pay for a restaurant dinner with your HSA debit card. It can also occur if you take a distribution to pay for a medical expense, but then are later reimbursed by insurance. This is discussed in the instructions for IRS forms 1099-SA and 5498-SA. (Note: these forms are submitted by the HSA bank, not the consumer, so the instructions are addressed to them.) HSA mistaken distributions. If amounts were distributed during the year from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause, the account beneficiary may repay the mistaken distribution no later than April 15 following the first year the account beneficiary knew or should have known the distribution was a mistake. For example, the account beneficiary reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that an expense was a qualified medical expense and was reimbursed for that expense from the HSA. The account beneficiary then repays the mistaken distribution to the HSA. You have until April 15 in the year following the refund to repay the HSA and avoid the extra tax and penalty that should be paid if you were to keep the distribution that was not ultimately used for medical expenses. When you send the money to the HSA bank, you need to explicitly tell them that it is a mistaken distribution repayment, so that they can report it to the IRS correctly and it will not affect your contribution limits."
}
] |
3995 | I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake? | [
{
"docid": "297900",
"title": "",
"text": "If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "124630",
"title": "",
"text": "In the United States taxes on the sale of a principal residence are based on the difference between the sale price and the cost of the home. Assuming you meet the requirements you can shelter 250,000 or 500,000 of gains from the sale of your principal residence. This calculation is not related to the loan balance. The basic equation is sales price minus purchase price. It get a little more complex because some costs to purchase and sell the home are included in the calculation, or if you made renovations to the house that will increase your costs and decrease your gains. Trying to decrease the loan balance just before selling the house would just be paying yourself that money at the settlement table. It could save you some money on interest between now and settlement but emptying your bank account to save a few bucks doesn't seem worth it. I would also prefer to have the money in the bank to pay for some expenses that will popup getting the house sold, you moving, and the settlement date."
},
{
"docid": "217727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to \"\"move your savings to Canada\"\" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a \"\"flight to safety\"\"; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future.\""
},
{
"docid": "17823",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\""
},
{
"docid": "181179",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/business/economy/bump-in-us-incomes-doesnt-erase-50-years-of-pain.html) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Starting with 1957, the team looked at actual earnings during the prime working years - the ages of 25 to 55. > The result was that a 25-year-old man who entered the work force in 1967 and worked for the next three decades earned as much as $250,000 more, after taking inflation into account, than a man who had the same type of career but was 15 years younger. > Most younger men ended up with less because they started out earning less than their counterparts in previous years, and saw little growth in their early years. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70q0gc/bump_in_us_incomes_doesnt_erase_50_years_of_pain/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~211729 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **income**^#2 **men**^#3 **earned**^#4 **more**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "467059",
"title": "",
"text": "Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget. I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account. Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank."
},
{
"docid": "145148",
"title": "",
"text": "Between now and October, your $3,000 will earn $30 in your savings account. If you are late on a payment for your 0% loan, your interest rate will skyrocket. In my opinion, the risk is just not worth the tiny gain you are trying to achieve in the savings account. If it was me, I would pay off the loan today. A few more thoughts: There is a reason that businesses offer 0% consumer loans. They are designed to trick you into thinking that you are getting a better deal than you are. Businesses don't lose money on these loans. The price of the loan is built into the cost of the purchase, whether you are buying expensive furniture, or a car. Typically with a car, you forfeit a rebate by taking the 0% loan, essentially paying all the interest up-front. Now that you have the loan, you might be ahead a few dollars by waiting to pay it off, but only because you've already paid the interest. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can come out ahead by buying things at 0%. It's really not free money. In the comments, @JoeTaxpayer mentioned that fear of mistakes can lead to missed rewards. I understand that; however, these 0% loans are full of small print designed to trip you up. A single mistake can negate years and years of these small gains. You don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish."
},
{
"docid": "13885",
"title": "",
"text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity."
},
{
"docid": "535207",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\""
},
{
"docid": "387400",
"title": "",
"text": "I quit diligently reconciling monthly statements some years before everything was online, when I realized that for years before that, every time I thought I found a mistake, it was always my own error. I was spending a fair amount of time (over the years) doing something that wasn't helping me. So I quit. That said, I do look at the statements and/or check the transactions on a regular basis (I now use email notifications of automatic deposits as the trigger, and then look over withdrawals, too) to make sure everything looks appropriate. I'm less concerned about a bank error than I am about identity or account theft."
},
{
"docid": "247371",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\""
},
{
"docid": "237397",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I made this mistake and tried calling Paypal...the first time I have ever been unhappy with their service. The girl gave me some number but didn't make it clear whether it was an order reference number or a reference phone number for the company I ordered from. I called within 10 minutes of placing my order and they were unable to cancel or change the payment method. I did find however, that even though you can't pay paypal with your credit card, some banks will let you. I went into my account and \"\"paid\"\" my account the amount needed using my credit card from the same bank that I had intended to use in the first place...hopefully it went through quickly enough to not get a service fee from Paypal\""
},
{
"docid": "8020",
"title": "",
"text": "Compared to a regular after tax savings account, there are several downsides of HsA: 1) many many fees by the bank - account opening fee, monthly maintenance fee, etc, up to $70/year 2) early withdrawal fee of now 20% of all the withdrawn monies. If you are in the 35% tax bracket, this will cost you %55 ---- they take more than half of your money if you make a mistake and must withdraw early for non-med purposes. There is no such downsides with regular savings accounts that are after tax. For more, see http://www.myvirtualschool.com/video/830/Attention:-Five-Secret-HSA-Account-Traps"
},
{
"docid": "22268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "163353",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\""
},
{
"docid": "184386",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. I think you're asking this: \"\"A US bank receives a wire transfer from a Chinese bank. How does the US bank ensure there's any money in fact arriving before crediting the destination account?\"\" Well, the way wire transfers work is that the US bank would debit the senders' account with that US bank. So the US bank in fact transfers the money between two internal accounts: debit to the Chinese bank's account with that US bank and credit the destination customer account. If the Chinese bank doesn't have an account with the destination US bank - a third party intermediary is used that both banks have accounts with. Such third party will charge an additional fee (hence sometimes the wire transfer fees are slightly higher than you initially know when sending the money, the third party would debit from the transfer amount). \"\"Regular\"\" IBAN/ACH transfers work through regulatory channels that ensure integrity and essentially use a regulatory bank as that third party. But because they're done in batches and not on-line, they're much cheaper, and the accounting is for the whole batch and not each transfer separately. But batch processing means it will take a day or two of processing, while wire transfer takes hours at most.\""
},
{
"docid": "309909",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you allowed to have two personal current accounts with a debit card attached to each one? Yes, you may have as many current accounts you want, but you should ask why should I have more than one. It is cumbersome and time consuming to keep track of ongoing incoming credits and outgoing debits. Open to bank fraud too, if you aren't careful. If yes, can a sole trader in the UK use the second personal account for business transactions? Yes, but no payments to the business. At the end of the year you file you P11D, even if you have a business bank account. You would need to justify the expenses by keeping the bills and stuff. As it will be a personal account, you have to little more careful, not to mix personal and business expenses. If you are allowed to use a second personal account for business transactions, then why would someone choose to open a business bank account, where you have to pay? What are the benefits? First of all no company will pay into you personal account, for any transactions, they need to pay you. They will only pay to an account registered with the business, with whom they are dealing with. Benefits are you have your business expenses sorted out in one account and personal expenses in other. Pure business expenses comes out of the business account, rather than from your personal purse, keeps the accounts smooth. No need to sort out expenses at the end of each quarter or at the end of each month."
},
{
"docid": "158965",
"title": "",
"text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately."
}
] |
3995 | I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake? | [
{
"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": "467059",
"title": "",
"text": "Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget. I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account. Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank."
},
{
"docid": "220559",
"title": "",
"text": "Something like this sort of thing happened to me but with Chase bank. The county made a mistake on our taxes and forgot to give us the right deductions and we got a whopping high property tax bill. Since we did have an escrow account the bank just paid the taxes and raised our mortgage by a nearly unaffordable 60% or so even though we called the bank and told them not to pay the tax bill as it was being disputed. By the time we got the tax issues sorted out Chase refused to adjust the mortgage. The only way we were able to get out of it was to refinance with another bank and opt out of the escrow account and handle taxes on our own, which fixed the whole problem. It seemed an awful lot like an attempt to force us into a foreclosure. If we didn't have the money to refinance we would have barely been able to afford the mortgage payment. Why they would want to do that I have no idea. It really sucked though."
},
{
"docid": "473957",
"title": "",
"text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina."
},
{
"docid": "131164",
"title": "",
"text": "As the college education is very costly, I want to send USD 25,000 to him as a gift. What is the procedure and what Indian and American tax laws are involved ? This transaction will be treated as gift. As per Indian law you can transfer unlimited amount to your close relative [son-in-law/grandchildren/daughter/etc]. In US the gift tax is on donor, as you are no US citizen you are not bound by this. As your son-in-law/grandchildren are US citizens, there is no tax to them. Your son-in-law may still need to declare this in Form 3250 or such relevant returns. Under the Liberalized remittance scheme [Refer Q3], you can transfer upto USD 250,000 per year. There maybe some forms that you need to fill. Ask your Bank. If the amount is more than USD 25,000 a CA certificate along with 15CA, 15CB need to be filled. Essentially the CA certifies that taxes on the funds being transferred have already been paid to Govt of India. Can I send money to him directly or to his father who is submitting tax returns in USA? This does not make any difference in India. Someone else may answer this question if it makes a difference in US."
},
{
"docid": "247371",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\""
},
{
"docid": "124630",
"title": "",
"text": "In the United States taxes on the sale of a principal residence are based on the difference between the sale price and the cost of the home. Assuming you meet the requirements you can shelter 250,000 or 500,000 of gains from the sale of your principal residence. This calculation is not related to the loan balance. The basic equation is sales price minus purchase price. It get a little more complex because some costs to purchase and sell the home are included in the calculation, or if you made renovations to the house that will increase your costs and decrease your gains. Trying to decrease the loan balance just before selling the house would just be paying yourself that money at the settlement table. It could save you some money on interest between now and settlement but emptying your bank account to save a few bucks doesn't seem worth it. I would also prefer to have the money in the bank to pay for some expenses that will popup getting the house sold, you moving, and the settlement date."
},
{
"docid": "100443",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are the main account holder I would try contacting your bank directly, some of them have very accommodating services for this kind of thing. You might even consider going in person if you have a local branch, this might just make communicating easier. They will probably go over your recent transactions with you to identify the fraudulent ones. You might do this first by yourself if you have an online account. Once you identify the fraudulent purchases they will probably take a week or two to investigate/process and reimburse you. But do NOT just close the account and forget about it- first off closing an account that is close to $2,000 in debt probably isn't even possible. Second, if you forgot about it for a long time and just let you credit take a hit you could end up really paying for it(in the form of higher interest payments) later in life when you try to get anything financed like car or house or even student loans for college. And make no mistake that can amount to *maaany* thousands of dollars more than you would otherwise pay over the course of a loan. So don't damage your credit if you can avoid it. Long story short, banks have special departments to handle this kind of thing, so work with your bank. See how that goes, if you run into hangups you may need to bring your parents into the loop. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "535207",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\""
},
{
"docid": "244405",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a well worn path and not a bad idea. There are quite a few pitfalls but there are a lot of resources to learn for other people's mistakes. Having a plan and doing your research should help you avoid most of them. Here is some general advice to help get you started on the right foot. Know the market you are investing in. The city should have more than one major employer. The population should be rising and hopefully there are other positive economic indicators. Check the city's and state's chamber of commerce for useful information. You do not want to be stuck holding a bunch of upside down property in Detroit. Accurately calculate expenses. Set aside money for repairs. budget 5% of the rent or 100 a month for repairs if no repairs happen that money goes into the repair fund for the future. Set aside money for capital expenditures if the roof has a 10 years of life left in 10 years you better be ready to replace it same with any major appliances. Your area should have a baseline vacancy rate 5-8% in my area. That says out of a year your property will be vacant for around 6% of the year or 21 days for turnover. You should build that cushion into the budget as well setting aside a portion of the rent to cover that lean period. Some property management will offer \"\"eviction insurance\"\" which is basically them enforcing that savings. Financing maybe difficult a lot of banks like to see 25% down payments on investments. You will also face higher interest rates for investment properties. Banks generally also like to see enough money to cover 6 months worth of expenses in your account for all property. Some banks will not give financing for investment property to someone without 1-2 years of landlord experience. All in all finding money will be hard when you gets started and your terms may be less than ideal. (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) If that includes loan pay-down and is not just cash-flow you are probably in the right ballpark. I can find $100-$200 dollars cash-flow a month on single family home in my area. Once loan pay-down is included your numbers are close. It sounds like you have a good attitude and a good plan. A book that I really enjoyed and I think may be useful is \"\"Start Small, Profit Big in Real Estate\"\" by Jay DeCima. I think of it as required reading for do-it-yourself real estate investors. Good luck and happy investing\""
},
{
"docid": "163353",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\""
},
{
"docid": "108001",
"title": "",
"text": "It used to be quite easy for students to get credit cards. When I was in college in the early 1980s, credit card companies set up tables in the student center and offered low-limit cards along with free t-shirts on an almost daily schedule. The Credit CARD Act of 2009 made this much more difficult for banks. If you have a bank or credit union account, the first thing I would do is talk to them about getting a card. Some banks offer a VISA Student Card specifically for college students. My daughter was able to get one when she turned 18, just before starting college. The credit limit is very low ($200 for freshmen, increasing each year until the limit is $500 during senior year). After graduation, it converts to a regular VISA account with a limit that depends on post-graduation income and the now established 4 years of credit history. The VISA web site has a list of banks offering this type of card. Now I will give you the same unsolicited advice I gave my daughter, and the same advice I think most others here would give you. For building credit, this kind of card is excellent, but you should still use it very sparingly, and pay off the balance every month. Make it a hard rule to never pay interest on a credit card bill. I told her to charge perhaps one or two purchases totaling no more than $25-$50 each month, and pay them off as soon as the statement arrives. This is much easier if you have a deposit account at the same bank, since you will be able to pay the bill instantly on line. Have your employer direct deposit your paychecks into that bank account, if at all possible."
},
{
"docid": "580168",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Trying to figure out how much money you have available each day sounds like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Unless you're extremely tight and you're trying to squeeze by day by day, asking \"\"do I have enough cash to buy food for today?\"\" and so on, you're doing too much work. Here's what I do. I make a list of all my bills. Some are a fixed amount every month, like the mortgage and insurance premiums. Others are variable, like electric and heating bills, but still pretty predictable. Most bills are monthly, but I have a few that come less frequently, like water bills in my area come every 3 months and I have to pay property taxes twice a year. For these you have to calculate how much they cost each month. Like for the water bill, it's once every 3 months so I divide a typical bill by 3. Always round up or estimate a little high to be safe. Groceries are a little tricky because I don't buy groceries on any regular schedule, and sometimes I buy a whole bunch at once and other times just a few things. When groceries were a bigger share of my income, I kept track of what I spent for a couple of months to figure out an average per month. (Today I'm a little richer and I just think of groceries as coming from my spending money.) I allocate a percentage of my income for contributions to church and charities and count this just like bills. It's a good idea to put aside something for savings and/or paying down any outstanding loans every month. Then I add these up to say okay, here's how much I need each month to pay the bills. Subtract that from my monthly income and that's what I have for spending money. I get paid twice a month so I generally pay bills when I get paid. For most bills the due date is far enough ahead that I can wait the maximum half a month to pay it. (Worst case the bill comes the day after I pay the bills from this paycheck.) Then I keep enough money in my checking account to, (a) Cover any bills until the next paycheck and allow for the particularly large bills; and (b) provide some cushion in case I make a mistake -- forget to record a check or make an arithmetic error or whatever; and (c) provide some cushion for short-term unexpected expenses. To be safe, (a) should be the total of your bills for a month, or as close to that as you can manage. (b) should be a couple of hundred dollars if you can manage it, more if you make a lot of mistakes. If you've calculated your expenses properly and only spend the difference, keeping enough money in the bank should fall out naturally. I think it's a lot easier to try to manage your money on a monthly basis than on a daily basis. Most of us don't spend money every day, and we spend wildly different amounts from day to day. Most days I probably spend zero, but then one day I'll buy a new TV or computer and spend hundreds. Update in response to question What I do in real life is this: To calculate my available cash to spend, I simply take the balance in my checking account -- assuming that all checks and electronic payments have cleared. My mortgage is deducted from my checking every month so I post that to my checking a month in advance. I pay a lot of things with automatic charges to a credit card these days, so my credit card bills are large and can't be ignored. So subtract my credit card balances. Subtract my reserve amount. What's left is how much I can afford to spend. So for example: Say I look at the balance in my checkbook today and it's, say, $3000. That's the balance after any checks and other transactions have cleared, and after subtracting my next mortgage payment. Then I subtract what I owe on credit cards. Let's say that was $1,200. So that leaves $1,800. I try to keep a reserve of $1,500. That's plenty to pay my routine monthly bills and leave a healthy reserve. So subtract another $1,500 leaves $300. That's how much I can spend. I could keep track of this with a spreadsheet or a database but what would that gain? The amount in my checking account is actual money. Any spreadsheet could accumulate errors and get farther and farther from accurate values. I use a spreadsheet to figure out how much spending money I should have each month, but that's just to use as a guideline. If it came to, say, $100, I wouldn't make grandiose plans about buying a new Mercedes. If it came to $5,000 a month than buying a fancy new car might be realistic. It also tells me how much I can spend without having to carefully check balances and add it up. These days I have a fair amount of spending money so when, for example, I recently decided I wanted to buy some software that cost $100 I just bought it with barely a second thought. When my spending money was more like $100 a month, lunch at a fast food place was a big event that I planned weeks in advance. (Obviously, I hope, don't get stupid about \"\"small amounts\"\". If you can easily afford $100 for an impulse purchase, that doesn't mean that you can afford $100 five times a day every day.) Two caveats: 1. It helps to have a limited number of credit cards so you can keep the balances under control. I have two credit cards I use for almost everything, so I only have two balances to keep track of. I used to have more and it got confusing, it was easy to lose track of how much I really owed, which is a set up for getting in trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "362922",
"title": "",
"text": ">eventually, the US will lose money until the point where production in the US is cheap enough to bring it back. Not if they raise taxes. I recently saw a mention of a research job in psychology that came to a conclusion more or less like this: given the choice of getting $100,000 while their neighbor got $250,000 and the alternative of each getting $50,000, most Americans chose the second option. They'd rather get less for themselves rather than let their neighbor get more than they did. That's why so many Americans favor higher taxes on the corporations. It doesn't matter if the corporations become unable to invest in more jobs, the important thing is not to let the corporations make money easily."
},
{
"docid": "560622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\""
},
{
"docid": "583803",
"title": "",
"text": "In the US bank or credit union checking, savings, CD's are insured through FDIC or NCUA. The coverage is for $250,000. This limit can be increased by having multiple accounts. You, your spouse, and a Joint account with your spouse, are considered 3 different accounts, so you could have $750K coverage. IRA funds are considered a separate pot of money for insurance coverage. Here is an explanation from NCUA and FDIC. There is no safety difference between savings and checking. There are differences regarding minimum balances, maximum number of transactions per month, and fees. But they are equally safe."
},
{
"docid": "489959",
"title": "",
"text": "In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account. I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you. If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting. Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes. For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever. After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose. I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose. When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does. I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation."
},
{
"docid": "325348",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A reason to get an accountant is to avoid penalties for possible mistakes. That is, if you make a mistake, the IRS can impose penalties on you for negligence. If the professional makes the SAME mistake, the burden of proof for \"\"negligence\"\" shifts to the IRS, which probably means that you'll pay more taxes and interest, but NO penalties; hiring an accountant is prima facie evidence of NOT being negligent. I would get an accountant since this the first time for you in the present situation, when mistakes are most likely. If you feel that s/he did the same for you that you would have done for yourself, then you might go back to doing your own taxes in later years.\""
},
{
"docid": "5181",
"title": "",
"text": "I dont think the author really understands why or how credit bureaus work, why they exist, and therefore where the blame exists for incorrect data. No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. The source of the data is always to blame for something being incorrect though. That's banks, utilities companies, etc. A credit bureau can't check any more than they do already. But they can improve how they deal with mistakes or badly matched data. Not sure about how that works in the US, but here in EU there are strict rules about how mistakes are corrected, and how long it takes. As for storing it in block chain.. That wouldn't really solve OPs problem with credit bureaus. Someone still needs to collect and match data, and that's arguably harder than securing the data in the first place."
},
{
"docid": "567193",
"title": "",
"text": "Under US law, a bank is not obligated to honor a check that is more than six months old. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Note the law says the bank is not OBLIGATED to honor the check, but they are not forbidden from doing so. I don't have a survey on this, but I think most banks won't honor a check after more than 6 months to a year. I've had a few occasions where early in the year someone accidentally wrote the previous year on a check, like on January 10, 2017 they dated the check January 10, 2016, and the bank has given me a hard time about cashing it. The statute of limitations to challenge payment or non-payment of a check is 6 years: § 3-118. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note must be commenced within six years after the demand. I understand your frustration about being denied money that you presumably worked for and earned. But look at it from the other side. Suppose you wrote a check to someone, and years later they still had not cashed it. At some point you'd want to be able to clear this off your bank account. What if you want to close the account? What happens when you die? Would your heirs have to keep this account open for years ... decades ... centuries ... on the possibility that someday someone will cash this check? Realistically, there has to be SOME time limit. 6 months should be plenty of time for someone to make it to the bank with a check. If the company still exists then you could argue they have a MORAL obligation to pay you. If they have records that show that they did indeed give you this check and you never cashed it there'd be no question that you were trying to cheat them. But a moral obligation and a legal obligation are two different things. Legally, they paid you, and it's your problem that you failed to cash the check. You could talk to a lawyer, but if you live in the US, I think you are out of luck. (Of course other countries have different laws.)"
}
] |
3995 | I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake? | [
{
"docid": "230208",
"title": "",
"text": "Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "255171",
"title": "",
"text": ">Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate IS asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Either my knowledge of finance is wrong or how interest rates work is wrong if that statement is true. Here is why your statement is not true: * The interest rate is money the bank makes on the loan. For example, say you buy a home valued at $250,000, put 10% down and your interest rate is 5% for 30 years. Well now you've got a mortgage ($225,000) that you pay $1,207.85 monthly. Now expand this out to 30 years, which means you'll make 360 payments for a total balance of $434,825.5. So even though you have a mortgage of $225,000 and your home is only valued at $250,000 due to the interest rate on that loan, you will be giving the bank $209,825.5 in profit for that $225,000 loan. Refinancing the loan at a lower rate is not debt forgiveness or a write off. >Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough. Actually it's the bank's greed which is wanting to keep the homeowner at the higher interest rate because it will make them more money over the long run. If the bank was to reduce the interest rate on the loan, they would be reducing their potential profits. And now you know why I support non profit banks."
},
{
"docid": "121230",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are some things you want to look at for evaluating a bank or credit union for your regular spending accounts: Convenience. Do they have a branch in a convenient location for you? Do they have no-fee ATMs near you? Website. If you are like me, you will spend more time on the bank's website than you do inside a branch. Some bank's websites are great, some are terrible. Unfortunately, this is generally difficult to evaluate until you actually get an account. You want a website that is easy to use. It should allow you to easily move money between your accounts, get instant lists of transactions, show you your monthly statements, and have a billpay feature that works well. If you use budgeting software that interfaces online with your bank, you want to ensure that it works well with your bank. Fee structure. Some banks will nickel-and-dime you to death. Watch out for minimum balance fees and ATM fees. Banks and credit unions usually have a fee schedule page on their website that lists every fee they charge, making it easy to compare different banks. I would not be very concerned about interest rates for savings. Currently, all savings accounts have a universally terrible interest rate. Therefore, I wouldn't base my bank choice on the interest rate. Sure, one might offer double the interest rate of another, but double \"\"next-to-nothing\"\" is still \"\"next-to-nothing.\"\" When you accumulate enough savings that you want to start maximizing your earnings, you can look for a better rate at another bank to move your savings to, and you can keep your checking account at the bank with the best convenience and fee structure. In my limited experience, I have had better luck with credit unions than with banks when it comes to fees.\""
},
{
"docid": "377152",
"title": "",
"text": "\"According to IRS Publication 1635, Understanding your EIN (PDF), under \"\"What is an EIN?\"\" on page 2: Caution: An EIN is for use in connection with your business activities only. Do not use your EIN in place of your social security number (SSN). As you say your EIN is for your business as a sole proprietor, I would also refer to Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, under \"\"Identification Numbers\"\": Social security number (SSN). Generally, use your SSN as your taxpayer identification number. You must put this number on each of your individual income tax forms, such as Form 1040 and its schedules. Employer identification number (EIN). You must also have an EIN to use as a taxpayer identification number if you do either of the following. Pay wages to one or more employees. File pension or excise tax returns. If you must have an EIN, include it along with your SSN on your Schedule C or C-EZ as instructed. While I can't point to anything specifically about bank accounts, in general the guidance I see is that your SSN is used for your personal stuff, and you have an EIN for use in your business where needed. You may be able to open a bank account listing the EIN as the taxpayer identification number on the account. I don't believe there's a legal distinction between what makes something a \"\"business\"\" account or not, though a bank may have different account offerings for different purposes, and only offer some of them to entities rather than individuals. If you want to have a separate account for your business transactions, you may want them to open it in the name of your business and they may allow you to use your EIN on it. Whether you can do this for one of their \"\"personal\"\" account offerings would be up to the bank. I don't see any particular advantages to using your EIN on a bank account for an individual, though, and I could see it causing a bit of confusion with the bank if you're trying to do so in a way that isn't one of their \"\"normal\"\" account types for a business. As a sole proprietor, there really isn't any distinction between you and your business. Any interest income is taxable to you in the same way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you legally other than perhaps your particular bank's policy on such things. I would suggest contacting your bank (or trying several banks) to get more information on what account offerings they have available and what would best fit you and your business's needs.\""
},
{
"docid": "291686",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd think the first question here is: Did they overpay you? And if so, what were the circumstances? At one extreme: If you lied on your timesheet and said you worked 50 hours when really you only worked 40, and they paid you for 50 hours, and now they've figured out that you didn't really work those overtime hours, then yes, they overpaid you and you owe them the money. Or if you reported your time accurately but they made an honest mistake, like you worked 30 hours but for whatever reason they paid you for 40, then they really did overpay you and you owe them the money. Or if a check was just mis-printed because their computer system screwed up or something, sorry, you don't get to keep the money. Yes, we all have fantasies about the bank accidentally adding a million dollars to our balance and somehow we get to keep the money, but sorry, it doesn't work that way in real life. If there's been a mistake, once they figure out the mistake, you have to give the money back. If it's something more complicated, it might be debatable. If you're not sure what the details are, find out the details and investigate. Do you have any evidence that what they are saying is not true? How much money is involved? If we're talking $20, it's not worth going to court over. You'd have to pay a lawyer way more than the $20. A court MIGHT order the company to pay your court costs if you won, but they might not. And if you lost, you could have to pay their court costs, which could be way more than any possible gain. There are times when it's better to just eat the loss and get on with your life. Of course, the same could be said from the other side: If the amount of money is small and the case is debatable and you refuse to hand over the cash, they may just give up figuring it's not worth the trouble. I don't know that I'd want to gamble on that, though. If there is serious money involved, at least several thousand dollars, then it could make sense to talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case."
},
{
"docid": "14349",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger."
},
{
"docid": "39783",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them."
},
{
"docid": "535207",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\""
},
{
"docid": "247371",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\""
},
{
"docid": "98727",
"title": "",
"text": "This is referred to as an HSA Mistaken Distribution. An HSA mistaken distribution occurs when you take a distribution and later find out that it is not for a qualified medical expense. For example, this could occur if you accidentally pay for a restaurant dinner with your HSA debit card. It can also occur if you take a distribution to pay for a medical expense, but then are later reimbursed by insurance. This is discussed in the instructions for IRS forms 1099-SA and 5498-SA. (Note: these forms are submitted by the HSA bank, not the consumer, so the instructions are addressed to them.) HSA mistaken distributions. If amounts were distributed during the year from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause, the account beneficiary may repay the mistaken distribution no later than April 15 following the first year the account beneficiary knew or should have known the distribution was a mistake. For example, the account beneficiary reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that an expense was a qualified medical expense and was reimbursed for that expense from the HSA. The account beneficiary then repays the mistaken distribution to the HSA. You have until April 15 in the year following the refund to repay the HSA and avoid the extra tax and penalty that should be paid if you were to keep the distribution that was not ultimately used for medical expenses. When you send the money to the HSA bank, you need to explicitly tell them that it is a mistaken distribution repayment, so that they can report it to the IRS correctly and it will not affect your contribution limits."
},
{
"docid": "200248",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\""
},
{
"docid": "309171",
"title": "",
"text": "I can't speak for the US, but I've completed direct tax payments via my online bank account (for business and personal) in two countries (South Africa and the UK). I find it easier and with a better record that the transaction took place than any of the other methods available (including going directly into a tax office to pay by cheque). Mail can go missing. Queueing in their offices takes hours and the result can still be misfiled (by them). Ditto allowing them to do a pay run on your account - they can make a mistake and you'll have difficulty proving it. A payment via my bank account gives me an electronic record and I can ensure all the details are correct myself. In addition, in the UK, paying online gives you a good few months extra grace to pay. Even in South Africa, online payments are given a few weeks grace over physical payments. Their recognising that you paying electronically saves them processing time."
},
{
"docid": "244405",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a well worn path and not a bad idea. There are quite a few pitfalls but there are a lot of resources to learn for other people's mistakes. Having a plan and doing your research should help you avoid most of them. Here is some general advice to help get you started on the right foot. Know the market you are investing in. The city should have more than one major employer. The population should be rising and hopefully there are other positive economic indicators. Check the city's and state's chamber of commerce for useful information. You do not want to be stuck holding a bunch of upside down property in Detroit. Accurately calculate expenses. Set aside money for repairs. budget 5% of the rent or 100 a month for repairs if no repairs happen that money goes into the repair fund for the future. Set aside money for capital expenditures if the roof has a 10 years of life left in 10 years you better be ready to replace it same with any major appliances. Your area should have a baseline vacancy rate 5-8% in my area. That says out of a year your property will be vacant for around 6% of the year or 21 days for turnover. You should build that cushion into the budget as well setting aside a portion of the rent to cover that lean period. Some property management will offer \"\"eviction insurance\"\" which is basically them enforcing that savings. Financing maybe difficult a lot of banks like to see 25% down payments on investments. You will also face higher interest rates for investment properties. Banks generally also like to see enough money to cover 6 months worth of expenses in your account for all property. Some banks will not give financing for investment property to someone without 1-2 years of landlord experience. All in all finding money will be hard when you gets started and your terms may be less than ideal. (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) If that includes loan pay-down and is not just cash-flow you are probably in the right ballpark. I can find $100-$200 dollars cash-flow a month on single family home in my area. Once loan pay-down is included your numbers are close. It sounds like you have a good attitude and a good plan. A book that I really enjoyed and I think may be useful is \"\"Start Small, Profit Big in Real Estate\"\" by Jay DeCima. I think of it as required reading for do-it-yourself real estate investors. Good luck and happy investing\""
},
{
"docid": "77570",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, a person that relies on their ability to tap a line of credit to cover an emergency isn't generally the kind of person that has investments they can cash out to cover the debt. That being said, my personal reasons for having a liquid emergency fund revolve around bank errors and identify theft. I used to work for a company that made bank software. Errors are a common occurrence. You'd be surprised how many transactions are still input by human hands despite our computerized world. All it takes is one typo to wipe out your ability to swipe plastic for a few days. This has actually happened to me. My utility company sent me a bill for $240 and wound up taking $2400 by accident, overdrawing my account and sending me into a fee spiral. They fixed their mistake... several days later. The snowball of fees from other transactions that bounced took another two months to correct. In the meantime, I also had my mortgage payment due. In the US, you can't pay your mortgage with credit, and for those who rent, many landlords won't let you pay with credit either. I have also seen this scenario play out twice with other people I've known who've had their ID stolen. Yes, the bank will cover the fraud after a lengthy process. But the disruption causes fees and overdrafts to quickly snowball out of control. I have a separate savings account at a different bank for this kind of thing, and I have a few hundred dollars cash in my house at all times. Having a liquid emergency fund allows you to quickly stabilize the situation and gives you walking around money for those times where the banking system becomes your enemy for a time."
},
{
"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": "580168",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Trying to figure out how much money you have available each day sounds like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Unless you're extremely tight and you're trying to squeeze by day by day, asking \"\"do I have enough cash to buy food for today?\"\" and so on, you're doing too much work. Here's what I do. I make a list of all my bills. Some are a fixed amount every month, like the mortgage and insurance premiums. Others are variable, like electric and heating bills, but still pretty predictable. Most bills are monthly, but I have a few that come less frequently, like water bills in my area come every 3 months and I have to pay property taxes twice a year. For these you have to calculate how much they cost each month. Like for the water bill, it's once every 3 months so I divide a typical bill by 3. Always round up or estimate a little high to be safe. Groceries are a little tricky because I don't buy groceries on any regular schedule, and sometimes I buy a whole bunch at once and other times just a few things. When groceries were a bigger share of my income, I kept track of what I spent for a couple of months to figure out an average per month. (Today I'm a little richer and I just think of groceries as coming from my spending money.) I allocate a percentage of my income for contributions to church and charities and count this just like bills. It's a good idea to put aside something for savings and/or paying down any outstanding loans every month. Then I add these up to say okay, here's how much I need each month to pay the bills. Subtract that from my monthly income and that's what I have for spending money. I get paid twice a month so I generally pay bills when I get paid. For most bills the due date is far enough ahead that I can wait the maximum half a month to pay it. (Worst case the bill comes the day after I pay the bills from this paycheck.) Then I keep enough money in my checking account to, (a) Cover any bills until the next paycheck and allow for the particularly large bills; and (b) provide some cushion in case I make a mistake -- forget to record a check or make an arithmetic error or whatever; and (c) provide some cushion for short-term unexpected expenses. To be safe, (a) should be the total of your bills for a month, or as close to that as you can manage. (b) should be a couple of hundred dollars if you can manage it, more if you make a lot of mistakes. If you've calculated your expenses properly and only spend the difference, keeping enough money in the bank should fall out naturally. I think it's a lot easier to try to manage your money on a monthly basis than on a daily basis. Most of us don't spend money every day, and we spend wildly different amounts from day to day. Most days I probably spend zero, but then one day I'll buy a new TV or computer and spend hundreds. Update in response to question What I do in real life is this: To calculate my available cash to spend, I simply take the balance in my checking account -- assuming that all checks and electronic payments have cleared. My mortgage is deducted from my checking every month so I post that to my checking a month in advance. I pay a lot of things with automatic charges to a credit card these days, so my credit card bills are large and can't be ignored. So subtract my credit card balances. Subtract my reserve amount. What's left is how much I can afford to spend. So for example: Say I look at the balance in my checkbook today and it's, say, $3000. That's the balance after any checks and other transactions have cleared, and after subtracting my next mortgage payment. Then I subtract what I owe on credit cards. Let's say that was $1,200. So that leaves $1,800. I try to keep a reserve of $1,500. That's plenty to pay my routine monthly bills and leave a healthy reserve. So subtract another $1,500 leaves $300. That's how much I can spend. I could keep track of this with a spreadsheet or a database but what would that gain? The amount in my checking account is actual money. Any spreadsheet could accumulate errors and get farther and farther from accurate values. I use a spreadsheet to figure out how much spending money I should have each month, but that's just to use as a guideline. If it came to, say, $100, I wouldn't make grandiose plans about buying a new Mercedes. If it came to $5,000 a month than buying a fancy new car might be realistic. It also tells me how much I can spend without having to carefully check balances and add it up. These days I have a fair amount of spending money so when, for example, I recently decided I wanted to buy some software that cost $100 I just bought it with barely a second thought. When my spending money was more like $100 a month, lunch at a fast food place was a big event that I planned weeks in advance. (Obviously, I hope, don't get stupid about \"\"small amounts\"\". If you can easily afford $100 for an impulse purchase, that doesn't mean that you can afford $100 five times a day every day.) Two caveats: 1. It helps to have a limited number of credit cards so you can keep the balances under control. I have two credit cards I use for almost everything, so I only have two balances to keep track of. I used to have more and it got confusing, it was easy to lose track of how much I really owed, which is a set up for getting in trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "108001",
"title": "",
"text": "It used to be quite easy for students to get credit cards. When I was in college in the early 1980s, credit card companies set up tables in the student center and offered low-limit cards along with free t-shirts on an almost daily schedule. The Credit CARD Act of 2009 made this much more difficult for banks. If you have a bank or credit union account, the first thing I would do is talk to them about getting a card. Some banks offer a VISA Student Card specifically for college students. My daughter was able to get one when she turned 18, just before starting college. The credit limit is very low ($200 for freshmen, increasing each year until the limit is $500 during senior year). After graduation, it converts to a regular VISA account with a limit that depends on post-graduation income and the now established 4 years of credit history. The VISA web site has a list of banks offering this type of card. Now I will give you the same unsolicited advice I gave my daughter, and the same advice I think most others here would give you. For building credit, this kind of card is excellent, but you should still use it very sparingly, and pay off the balance every month. Make it a hard rule to never pay interest on a credit card bill. I told her to charge perhaps one or two purchases totaling no more than $25-$50 each month, and pay them off as soon as the statement arrives. This is much easier if you have a deposit account at the same bank, since you will be able to pay the bill instantly on line. Have your employer direct deposit your paychecks into that bank account, if at all possible."
},
{
"docid": "87423",
"title": "",
"text": "I actually initiated the program by walking in and talking to the SFA. We sat down and talked about how I would advise clients on possible investment strategies. Most people would act as if I kicked their dog, but I guess Americans appreciate their Saturdays, which is understandable. I got a few bites where a client with a $250,000 money-market account questioned me on a few banking opportunities and so I passed him on to one of our banking specialists (who earn commission) and I didn't see a fucking dollar of that."
},
{
"docid": "158",
"title": "",
"text": "In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same."
},
{
"docid": "236177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\""
}
] |
4007 | What is a reasonable salary for the owner and sole member of a small S-Corp? | [
{
"docid": "556220",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer depends on this: If you had to hire someone to do what you are doing in the S-corp, what would you pay them? If you are doing semi-unskilled work part-time, then $20k might be reasonable. If you are a professional working full time, it's too low. Don't forget that, in addition to \"\"billable\"\" work, you are also doing office tasks, such as invoicing and bookkeeping, that the IRS will also want to see you getting paid for. There was an important court ruling on this subject recently: Watson v. Commissioner. Watson owned an S-Corp where he was the sole employee. The S-Corp itself was a 25% owner in a very successful accounting firm that Watson worked through. All of the revenue that Watson generated at the accounting firm was paid to the S-Corp, which then paid Watson through salary and distributions. Watson was paying himself $24k a year in salary and taking over $175k a year in distributions. For comparison, even first-year accountants at the firm were making more than $24k a year in salary. The IRS determined that this salary amount was too low. To determine an appropriate amount for Watson's salary, the IRS did a study of the salaries of peers in firms of the same size as the firm Watson was working with, taking into account that owners of firms earn a higher salary than non-owners. The number that the IRS arrived at was $93k. Watson was allowed to take the rest ($80k+ each year) as distributions. Again, this number was based on a study of the salaries of peers. It was far short of the $200k+ that the S-Corp was pulling in from the accounting firm. Clearly, Watson was paying himself far too low of a salary. But even at this extreme example, where Watson's S-Corp was directly getting all of its revenue from one accounting firm in which Watson was an owner, the IRS still did not conclude that all of the revenue should have been salary and subject to payroll taxes. You should ask an accountant or attorney for advice. They can help you determine an appropriate amount for your salary. Don't be afraid of an audit, but make sure that you can defend your choices if you do get audited. If your choices are based on professional advice, that will help your case. See these articles for more information:\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "458079",
"title": "",
"text": "S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability."
},
{
"docid": "141458",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not really, no. The assumption you're making—withdrawals from a corporation are subject to \"\"[ordinary] income tax\"\"—is simplistic. \"\"Income tax\"\" encompasses many taxes, some more benign than others, owing to credits and exemptions based on the kind of income. Moreover, the choices you listed as benefits in the sole-proprietor case—the RRSP, the TFSA, and capital gains treatment for non-registered investments—all remain open to the owner of a small corporation ... the RRSP to the extent that the owner has received salary to create contribution room. A corporation can even, at some expense, establish a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and exceed individual RRSP contribution limits. Yes, there is a more tax-efficient way for small business owners to benefit when it comes time to retirement. Here is an outline of two things I'm aware of: If your retirement withdrawals from your Canadian small business corporation would constitute withdrawal from the corporation's retained earnings (profits), i.e. income to the corporation that had already been subject to corporate income tax in prior years, then the corporation is able to declare such distributions as dividends and issue you a T5 slip (Statement of Investment Income) instead of a T4 slip (Statement of Remuneration Paid). Dividends received by Canadian residents from Canadian corporations benefit from the Dividend Tax Credit (DTC), which substantially increases the amount of income you can receive without incurring income tax. See TaxTips.ca - Non-eligible (small business) dividend tax credit (DTC). Quote: For a single individual with no income other than taxable Canadian dividends which are eligible for the small business dividend tax credit, in 2014 approximately $35,551 [...] could be earned before any federal* taxes were payable. * Provincial DTCs vary, and so combined federal/provincial maximums vary. See here. If you're wondering about \"\"non-eligible\"\" vs. \"\"eligible\"\": private small business corporation dividends are generally considered non-eligible for the best DTC benefit—but they get some benefit—while a large public corporation's dividends would generally be considered eligible. Eligible/non-eligible has to do with the corporation's own income tax rates; since Canadian small businesses already get a big tax break that large companies don't enjoy, the DTC for small businesses isn't as good as the DTC for public company dividends. Finally, even if there is hardly any same-year income tax advantage in taking dividends over salary from an active small business corporation (when you factor in both the income tax paid by the corporation and the individual), dividends still allow a business owner to smooth his income over time, which can result in a lower lifetime average tax rate. So you can use your business as a retained earnings piggy bank to spin off dividends that attract less tax than ordinary income. But! ... if you can convince somebody to buy your business from you, then you can benefit from the lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $800,000 on qualifying small business shares. i.e. you can receive up to $800K tax-free on the sale of your small business shares. This lifetime capital gains exemption is a big carrot—designed, I believe, to incentivize Canadian entrepreneurs to develop going-concern businesses that have value beyond their own time in the business. This means building things that would make your business worth buying, e.g. a valued brand or product, a customer base, intellectual property, etc. Of course, there are details and conditions with all of what I described, and I am not an accountant, so please consult a qualified, conflict-free professional if you need advice specific to your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "521489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "454035",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Agreed on all points. You're still not saving a TON of money, given that you have to have a reasonable balance of salary/distributions, but an S-corp is the way to go if you're making substantial profit in order to save tax money. I'll reiterate (my wife is a CPA and she guides me on my business) - you can't legally save \"\"untaxed earnings\"\" for next year.\""
},
{
"docid": "291931",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations! I would start with an attorney. As a 17 year old, you legally cannot sign contracts, so you're going to have to setup some sort of structure with your parents first. Get attorney references -- your parents can ask around at work, if you're friendly with any business owners, ask them, etc. Talk to a few and pick someone who you are comfortable with. Ask your attorney for advice re: sole proprietor/S-Corp/LLC. You have assets, and your parents presumably have some assets, so you need advice about isolating your business from the rest of your life. Do the same thing for accountant references, but ask your attorney for a reference as well."
},
{
"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": "90554",
"title": "",
"text": "This question is largely opinion based but I wanted to balance out the people jumping on you. There are lots of factors that go into salary/pay, such as what you contribute to the company and whather you go above or beyond whats expected of you. I would say seniority is one factor, or at least there is a case to be made that it is important. If someone has worked 5 years for me, that is five years that I have not had to search, interview, and train a replacement. I am not a business owner but I do employ people and when someone quits its an extremely stressful process. Not having to go through that, again in my opinion, is worth a small bump in pay. I cant comment on if its fair or not. That is opinion. What is fact is that whenever a broad group of people are given a pay raise for arbitrary reasons and other employees arent, its creates discontent, it hurts morale, employees leave, and in severe cases the business becomes crippled. So Im not sure if its fair, but is it a bad idea? Generally. See here and I highly recommend going here for anyone who thinks dramatically raising pay 'because its the right thing to do' is a good idea"
},
{
"docid": "154931",
"title": "",
"text": "The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability."
},
{
"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": "102995",
"title": "",
"text": "I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll."
},
{
"docid": "243949",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few different ways to organize this, but mostly I think you need to talk to a lawyer. The 50/50 split thing should be in writing along with a bunch of other issues. You could have one of you doing a sole proprietorship where the other person is a contractor that receives half of all revenues/profits. The person that owns the sole proprietorship may be entitled to deduct certain costs of running the entity. The other person would then be 1099'd his share of revenues. You could set up a partnership, again legal paperwork is necessary. You could also setup an S-Corp, where each of you is a 50% owner. You could also setup an LLC that is organized as any of the above. I would only do this if you can self fund some additional tax preparation costs. Figure about $600/year at a minimum. There are a lot of options with a sole proprietorship being the easiest. Your first step on the new venture would be to apply for an EIN (free), and then opening a business bank account. Good luck."
},
{
"docid": "562780",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, absolutely she can. I come across small businesses from sole props to corps and llc who have their spouses employed. One thing to note is that the business won't need Workers Comp insurance if you're the only employee, if you hire anyone else you will need it."
},
{
"docid": "40044",
"title": "",
"text": "You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already."
},
{
"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": "70452",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\""
},
{
"docid": "151023",
"title": "",
"text": "An LLC is a very flexible company when it comes to taxation. You have three basic tax options: There are other good reasons to create an LLC (mainly to protect your personal assets) so even if you decide that you don't want to deal with the complications of an S-Corp LLC, you should still consider creating a sole proprietorship LLC."
},
{
"docid": "260705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very vague question and could not be fairly answered without knowing additional details, some examples would be: * What is the total revenue of the non-profit? * What are the total expenses of the non-profit? * What is the effectiveness rate to the \"\"cause\"\" of each $1 donated? Non-profit organizations and charities have grown to large scale business operations that are focused on delivering value to their determined cause. The Top 5 largest charities each had total revenues over $3.3 billion in 2012. This included United Way, Goodwill, The Y, and the Salvation Army with the largest being the Y at over $6.2 billion in annual revenue. All of these non-profits bring in enough revenue to be in the Fortune 500 (The 500th company on the list is Newmont Mining Corp at $3.2 billion in revenue). When you consider the scale of these operations I think you need to acquire an experienced CEO that has a career history of leading large and many times multi-national organization. These CEOs command high salaries because of their talent and expertise. I believe when they are passionate about a cause they're willing to take a discount, but you have to understand the term discount proportionately. I made a quick table below just to provide some context and show reference points of several Fortune 500 companies in comparison to The Y, the largest non-profit in total revenue. You can quickly see that a salary of $450,000 for an organization of this size would be a significant discount in comparison to the CEO salaries of comparably sized organization in the for profit world. When considering charitable contributions it is entirely valid to consider the CEO's salary, but also consider the potential value add. For example, if that CEO generates a significantly more effective ratio of utilizing donated $ then it may justify the salary. In some scenarios it is fair to say that $450,000 would be a fair and adequate salary for a CEO running a large scale non-profit. Is this the case for every non-profit? Probably not. It should often be thought of as a function of total revenue and effectiveness of the $ donated. Company | 2013 Revenue | 2013 CEO Salary | Ratio ---|----|----|-----| Cummins | $6.3B | $9.4M | .15% EMC Corp | $6.2B | $32.3M | .52% Northeast Utilities | $6.1B | $1.7M | .03% Agilent Technologies | $6.1B | $10.2M | .17% *The Y (YMCA)* | *$6.2B* | *$.45M* | *.007%* Source(s): http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/11-1-13_Top100.pdf http://www.salary.com/ http://www.grossing.com/fortune500.htm\""
}
] |
4007 | What is a reasonable salary for the owner and sole member of a small S-Corp? | [
{
"docid": "388704",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\""
}
] | [
{
"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": "102995",
"title": "",
"text": "I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll."
},
{
"docid": "482165",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity."
},
{
"docid": "508078",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole \"\"reasonable salary\"\" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is \"\"yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,\"\" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years.\""
},
{
"docid": "79411",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is not an end-all answer but it'll get you started I have been through accounting courses in college as well as worked as a contractor (files as sole proprietor) for a few years but IANAA (I am not an accountant). Following @MasonWheeler's answer, if you're making that much money you should hire a bean counter to at least overlook your bookkeeping. What type of business? First, if you're the sole owner of the business you will most likely file as a sole proprietorship. If you don't have an official business entity, you should get it registered officially asap, and file under that name. The problem with sole proprietorships is liability. If you get sued, not only are your business' assets vulnerable but they can go after your personal assets too (including house/cars/etc). Legally, you and your business are considered one and the same. To avoid liability issues, you could setup a S corporation. Basically, the business is considered it's own entity and legal matters can only take as much as the business owns. You gain more protection but if you don't explicitly keep your business finances separate from your personal finances, you can get into a lot of trouble. Also, corporations generally pay out more in taxes. Technically, since the business is it's own entity you'll need to pay yourself a 'reasonable salary'. If you skip the salary and pay yourself the profits directly (ie evade being taxed on income/salary) the IRS will shut you down (that's one of the leading causes of corporations being shut down). You can also pay distribute bonuses on top of that but it would be wise to burn the words 'within reason' into your memory first. The tax man gets mad if you short him on payroll taxes. S corporations are complicated, if you go that route definitely seek help from an accountant. Bookkeeping If you're not willing to pay a full time accountant you'll need to do a lot of studying about how this works. Generally, even if you have a sole proprietorship it's best to have a separate bank account for all of your business transactions. Every source/drain of money will fall into one of 3 categories... Assets - What your business owns: Assets can be categorized by liquidity. Meaning how fast you can transform them directly into cash. Just because a company is worth a lot doesn't necessarily mean it has a lot of cash. Some assets depreciate (lose value over time) whereas some are very hard to transform back into cash based on the value and/or market fluctuations (like property). Liabilities - What you owe others and what others owe you: Everything you owe and everything that is owed to you gets tracked. Just like credit cards, it's completely possible to owe more than you own as long as you can pay the interest to maintain the loans. Equity - the net worth of the company: The approach they commonly teach in schools is called double-entry bookkeeping where they use the equation: In practice I prefer the following because it makes more sense: Basically, if you account for everything correctly both sides of the equation should match up. If you choose to go the sole proprietorship route, it's smart to track everything I've mentioned above but you can choose to keep things simple by just looking at your Equity. Equity, the heart of your business... Basically, every transaction you make having to do with your business can be simplified down to debits (money/value) increasing and credits (money/value) decreasing. For a very simple company you can assess this by looking at net profits. Which can be calculated with: Revenues, are made up of money earned by services performed and goods sold. Expenses are made up of operating costs, materials, payroll, consumables, interest on liabilities, etc. Basically, if you brought in 250K but it cost you 100K to make that happen, you've made 150K for the year in profit. So, for your taxes you can count up all the money you've made (Revenues), subtract all of the money you've paid out (Expenses) and you'll know how much profit you've made. The profit is what you pay taxes on. The kicker is, there are gray areas when it comes to deducting expenses. For instance, you can deduct the expense of using your car for business but you need to keep a log and can only expense the miles you traveled explicitly for business. Same goes for deducting dedicated workspaces in your house. Basically, do the research if you're not 100% sure about a deduction. If you don't keep detailed books and try to expense stuff without proof, you can get in trouble if the IRS comes knocking. There are always mythical stories about 'that one guy' who wrote off his boat on his taxes but in reality, you can go to jail for tax fraud if you do that. It comes down to this. At the end of the year, if your business took in a ton of money you'll owe a lot in taxes. The better you can justify your expenses, the more you can reduce that debt. One last thing. You'll also have to pay your personal federal/state taxes (including self-employment tax). That means medicare/social security, etc. If this is your first foray into self-employment you're probably not familiar with the fact that 1099 employers pick up 1/2 of the 15% medicare/social security bill. Typically, if you have an idea of what you make annually, you should be paying this out throughout the year. My pay as a contractor was always erratic so I usually paid it out once/twice a year. It's better to pay too much than too little because the gov't will give you back the money you overpaid. At the end of the day, paying taxed sucks more if you're self-employed but it balances out because you can make a lot more money. If as you said, you've broken six figures, hire a damn accountant/adviser to help you out and start reading. When people say, \"\"a business degree will help you advance in any field,\"\" it's subjects like accounting are core requirements to become a business undergrad. If you don't have time for more school and don't want to pay somebody else to take care of it, there's plenty of written material to learn it on your own. It's not rocket surgery, just basic arithmetic and a lot of business jargon (ie almost as much as technology).\""
},
{
"docid": "423074",
"title": "",
"text": "There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida). The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance."
},
{
"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": "81886",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% got their income in 2013 (latest data): Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5% And here are there definitions of the types of income: * Labor income—Cash wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums; the employer’s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers. * Business income—Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations. * Capital gains—Profits realized from the sale of assets. Increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of market income. * Capital income (excluding capital gains)—Taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income), positive rental income, and the share of corporate income taxes borne by owners of capital. * Other income—Income received in retirement for past services and other sources of income."
},
{
"docid": "204151",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> everything looks 35 years old. My local kmart looks like the land before time. > The reason sears/Kmart is hurt is due to their management being directed by a hedge fund. But that hedge fund manager \"\"genius\"\" acquired all of that Sears real estate as an asset play in 2005. Makes you wonder how it's being carried on the books post crash. edit: here's the reason for the store closings: > Sears Holdings Corp announced that for the fourth quarter of 2011, it expects consolidated adjusted EBITDA will be less than half of last year's amount. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SHLD.O/key-developments/article/2456570 Ouch! That should put them in the red for the entire year! Retailers obviously depend on the holiday season, and it was dismal this year for sears. I noticed that they had been in the black solely because the always got bailed out by 4th quarter earnings. No more!\""
},
{
"docid": "521489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\""
},
{
"docid": "132738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\""
},
{
"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": "310612",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\""
},
{
"docid": "315552",
"title": "",
"text": "Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out."
},
{
"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": "89872",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\""
},
{
"docid": "195637",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to the normal limits, A Solo 401(k) allows you to contribute up to 20% of net profits (sole proprietor) or 50% of salary (if a corporation), up to $49,000. Note that the fees for 401(k) accounts are higher than with the IRA. See 401(k)s for small business."
},
{
"docid": "371426",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Another aspect is decision makers must CONSTANTLY re-evaluate not only the current climate, but the future. I'm not sure if anyone noticed but the economy and consumer confidence is in the toilet. If business owners arent careful it very well could collapse and in the end if it does fail there is nobody else responsible but themselves. So in times of success, yes the business owners reap profit, but in tough times so too do they have to take full responsibility and consequences of reality. Salary employees have no such liability, they go to work at 9am and leave at 5pm and while most want increased responsbility because that usually yields increased competition, most have no interest in taking true responsibility for the company's health. As the sole principal of the company it is wholly his choice what direction and decisions to make for the company. I guarantee you his decision will not be based on vengence or grudge but rather weighing incentives to continue, and being an older gentlemen decide it's no longer worth it and retire. I've personally see many smaller companies do this in the past 10 years. \"\"Why go through the stress? I've got cash. I'm going to sell or close the company and retire.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "40044",
"title": "",
"text": "You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already."
}
] |
4007 | What is a reasonable salary for the owner and sole member of a small S-Corp? | [
{
"docid": "521657",
"title": "",
"text": "You can get audited for anything Business owners are more likely to get audited than people filing 1040-EZ's for their simplistic income tax obligation. According to HR Block I hope you enjoy the process where you explain the source of your earnings"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "72321",
"title": "",
"text": "Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator."
},
{
"docid": "70452",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\""
},
{
"docid": "458079",
"title": "",
"text": "S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability."
},
{
"docid": "502616",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since you seem to be the expert.... riddle me this: What is the breakdown of entrepreneurs and how they operate by: LLCs, C-Corp, S-Corp, Sole-proprietor? Is it: 15/35/20/30? You basically need to know what this breakdown is in order to claim that \"\"most entrepreneurs pay hardly any income tax at all.\"\" So... what is it, and please cite your source.\""
},
{
"docid": "582571",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're confusing so many things at once here...... First thing first: we cannot suggest you what to do business-wise since we have no idea about your business. How on Earth can anyone know if you should sell the software to someone or try to distribute to customers yourself? How would we know if you should hire employees or not? If you say you don't need employees - why would you consider hiring them? If you say you want to sell several copies and have your own customers - why would you ask if you should sell your code to someone else? Doesn't make sense. Now to some more specific issues: I heard sole proprietary companies doesn't earn more than 250k and it's better to switch to corporation or LLC etc. because of benefits. I heard it was snowing today in Honolulu. So you heard things. It doesn't make them true, or relevant to you. There's no earning limit above which you should incorporate. You can be sole proprietor and make millions, and you can incorporate for a $10K/year revenue business. Sole proprietorship, incorporation (can be C-Corp or S-Corp), or LLC - these are four different types of legal entity to conduct business. Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and you must understand which one suits you in your particular situation. For that you should talk to a lawyer who could help you understand what liability protection you might need, and to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who can help you understand the tax-related costs and benefits of each choice. On the other hand I heard that if I create LLC company, in case of failure, they can get EVERYTHING from me, what's this all about? No. This is not true. Who are \"\"they\"\", how do you define \"\"failure\"\", and why would they get anything from you at all? Even without knowing all that, your understanding is wrong, because the \"\"LL\"\" in LLC stands for LIMITED liability. The whole point of forming LLC or Corporation is to limit your own personal liability. But mere incorporation or forming LLC doesn't necessarily mean your liability is limited. Your State law defines what you must do for that limited liability protection, and that includes proper ways to run your business. Again - talk to your lawyer and your tax adviser about what it means to you. I'm totally unfamiliar with everything related to taxes/companies/LLC/corporation etc Familiarize yourself. No-one is going to do it for you. Start reading, ask specific questions on specific issues, and get a proper legal and tax advice from licensed professionals.\""
},
{
"docid": "308938",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\""
},
{
"docid": "454537",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\""
},
{
"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": "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": "141458",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not really, no. The assumption you're making—withdrawals from a corporation are subject to \"\"[ordinary] income tax\"\"—is simplistic. \"\"Income tax\"\" encompasses many taxes, some more benign than others, owing to credits and exemptions based on the kind of income. Moreover, the choices you listed as benefits in the sole-proprietor case—the RRSP, the TFSA, and capital gains treatment for non-registered investments—all remain open to the owner of a small corporation ... the RRSP to the extent that the owner has received salary to create contribution room. A corporation can even, at some expense, establish a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and exceed individual RRSP contribution limits. Yes, there is a more tax-efficient way for small business owners to benefit when it comes time to retirement. Here is an outline of two things I'm aware of: If your retirement withdrawals from your Canadian small business corporation would constitute withdrawal from the corporation's retained earnings (profits), i.e. income to the corporation that had already been subject to corporate income tax in prior years, then the corporation is able to declare such distributions as dividends and issue you a T5 slip (Statement of Investment Income) instead of a T4 slip (Statement of Remuneration Paid). Dividends received by Canadian residents from Canadian corporations benefit from the Dividend Tax Credit (DTC), which substantially increases the amount of income you can receive without incurring income tax. See TaxTips.ca - Non-eligible (small business) dividend tax credit (DTC). Quote: For a single individual with no income other than taxable Canadian dividends which are eligible for the small business dividend tax credit, in 2014 approximately $35,551 [...] could be earned before any federal* taxes were payable. * Provincial DTCs vary, and so combined federal/provincial maximums vary. See here. If you're wondering about \"\"non-eligible\"\" vs. \"\"eligible\"\": private small business corporation dividends are generally considered non-eligible for the best DTC benefit—but they get some benefit—while a large public corporation's dividends would generally be considered eligible. Eligible/non-eligible has to do with the corporation's own income tax rates; since Canadian small businesses already get a big tax break that large companies don't enjoy, the DTC for small businesses isn't as good as the DTC for public company dividends. Finally, even if there is hardly any same-year income tax advantage in taking dividends over salary from an active small business corporation (when you factor in both the income tax paid by the corporation and the individual), dividends still allow a business owner to smooth his income over time, which can result in a lower lifetime average tax rate. So you can use your business as a retained earnings piggy bank to spin off dividends that attract less tax than ordinary income. But! ... if you can convince somebody to buy your business from you, then you can benefit from the lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $800,000 on qualifying small business shares. i.e. you can receive up to $800K tax-free on the sale of your small business shares. This lifetime capital gains exemption is a big carrot—designed, I believe, to incentivize Canadian entrepreneurs to develop going-concern businesses that have value beyond their own time in the business. This means building things that would make your business worth buying, e.g. a valued brand or product, a customer base, intellectual property, etc. Of course, there are details and conditions with all of what I described, and I am not an accountant, so please consult a qualified, conflict-free professional if you need advice specific to your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "514608",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Why should I have to pay someone more to do a shittier job just because they're in a members only club? Uh, you might not have to pay more, since many employers can just take a modest hit to their profit margin to treat their workers better than cattle. And, given the puny amounts they're paying their workers to begin with, I doubt your wallet will scream in pain if prices inch up a tiny bit to pay these plebes so they may live lives of regular poverty, instead of grinding poverty. Getting beyond the liquid bullshit your sentence has been marinated in, I'll assume you're merely asking why you should have to pay someone more to do the same job. Essentially, the answer lies in the collusive power employers usually have to conspire to lower wages, because there are always fewer, usually far fewer, employers in any industry than there are employees. So the employers are always in an \"\"exclusive, members-only club.\"\" The examples of employers combining to lower wages and salaries are so numerous that it's an embarrassment of riches as to which to choose, but I'll pick the refusal of major-league baseball to sign free agents in 1979, just to teach the players a lesson. This ended Rod Carew's career, among other things, even though the owners were later punished in court, so it does not please me. In some industries, unions are unnecessary - medicine and law come to mind - but these workers still have wage-hiking and incompetence protecting mechanisms: consider the AMA's efforts to close teaching hospitals and limit doctor supply, or the seeming inability of state bar associations to investigate anything less than the grossest incompetence of their members. It's just that the AMA and the bar association are not called \"\"unions.\"\" But back to the issue of Walmart unionization: unions, though prone to excess when they are too strong, have been the only means of leveling the playing field between ownership and employees in ways that have made life livable for all of us today. Want an example? The 40-hour week, which would never have become customary, let alone been given legal force, if it were up to the employers and the free-market fairy with her magical market pixie dust. Today, employees in industries never unionized enjoy the benefits of overtime pay, decent working conditions, Saturdays off, and healthcare, such as it is, thanks to union representatives who were beaten by Pinkerton thugs, and then returned to be beaten so many times that the bosses finally gave in and made America a decent place to live for those who were labor, and not just capital. It has been proven over and over again throughout history that, given the chance, the wealthy will treat the rest of us like s-h-i-t unless we occasionally fight back collectively. If labor becomes cheaper under the free market, employers will eventually attempt to pay workers only enough to reproduce, unless there are so many workers already that this is unnecessary, and nothing more. Knowing what societies are like when this occurs - think 19th-century industrial Europe or modern Venezuela - I'm not eager to live in such a society. When workers are treated like dirt, you usually end up paying more anyway, in home security systems, public safety costs, and salaries for corpse-removal crews to keep the city streets clean. TLDR: Fuck you, you ignorant fuck.\""
},
{
"docid": "310612",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\""
},
{
"docid": "590310",
"title": "",
"text": "Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline."
},
{
"docid": "23431",
"title": "",
"text": "Whoever pays gets the say Union Reps' salaries/flights comes from dues paid by union members. They're the ones paying for those flights, not the general public. Union members should have the final say if the Reps fly first, business, coach or whatever. Public employees should fly what is cheapest and pay for an upgrade out-of-pocket if so desired because we the taxpayers pay their tickets/salaries"
},
{
"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": "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": "151023",
"title": "",
"text": "An LLC is a very flexible company when it comes to taxation. You have three basic tax options: There are other good reasons to create an LLC (mainly to protect your personal assets) so even if you decide that you don't want to deal with the complications of an S-Corp LLC, you should still consider creating a sole proprietorship LLC."
},
{
"docid": "249322",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a registered S-corp but for alot of industries that threshold is too low (I'm in housing) >Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? > >As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. > >Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this. The article I posted also doesn't take into account state taxes, do example non deductible B&O, end user Sales tax or impact fees... That Employees don't pay or often even know about, yet some of us small business owners are also employees, so we get double taxed..."
},
{
"docid": "454035",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Agreed on all points. You're still not saving a TON of money, given that you have to have a reasonable balance of salary/distributions, but an S-corp is the way to go if you're making substantial profit in order to save tax money. I'll reiterate (my wife is a CPA and she guides me on my business) - you can't legally save \"\"untaxed earnings\"\" for next year.\""
}
] |
4011 | How can I deal with a spouse who compulsively spends? | [
{
"docid": "136367",
"title": "",
"text": "\"compulsive eating, and other compulsions, are also an issue If this is true, then this is not a money problem. This is a psychological problem that manifests itself in overspending. I would make an appointment with a counselor or therapist ASAP to start dealing with this problem before the symptoms get any worse. That said, here are some practical things that you can do to reduce overspending: The most important thing is that this be done TOGETHER. You cannot dictate to him how yo spend your (plural) money, you cannot take away credit cards and give him an \"\"allowance\"\", etc. It mush be something that you both agree is important. If you cannot agree on a plan to get on a budget, then counseling would be in order.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "289064",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\""
},
{
"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": "516576",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I feel that getting money sooner than later is always advantageous. If I offered you the choice between getting: Which option would you take? I would take the last option. And for the same reason, from a purely-numbers point of view, I would argue that getting paid biweekly is preferable (assuming the the annual salary is pro-rated fairly, and barring any compulsive spending habits). Your calculations suggest to me that they are trying to answer the question, \"\"Looking at a single year or month (or some other fixed amount of time) in a vacuum, is there any financial benefit to being paid bi-weekly over monthly?\"\". The analysis seems to be focusing on comparing the two pay schedules on a month-by-month basis, noting when one is paid bi-weekly, some months you get paid more times than the other. However, one could also compare the two pay schedules on a fortnight-by-fortnight basis, and note that when one is paid monthly, many fortnights you don't get paid at all, and some you get paid a lot. Or one could compare the two pay schedules on an hour-by-hour basis, too. But in the long run, the money adds up to be the same amount. I prefer getting it as soon as I can.\""
},
{
"docid": "77658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\""
},
{
"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": "514129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\""
},
{
"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": "398266",
"title": "",
"text": "He is just convincing people who likes to listen less science because thats what everyone is doing to influence the majority. Thats how companies sell products or ideas to make people buy products. Seeing how many people referring that documentary after starting a vegan diet I think they did a good job regardless of the bad science and fact stretching. People who are interested in science of the plant based/vegan diet can read books like the China Study of C. Campbell. I don't know how many average Joe will spend time to read and digest that."
},
{
"docid": "70668",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "55327",
"title": "",
"text": "Your spouse is eligible for an HSA even if you have one as long as she is covered by a qualified high-deductible plan. In the case that you both had HSAs you would be limited in how much you contribute each year, but both can have accounts. In 2015, you could each contribute $3350 to your separate HSA plans. If you have a combined plan, and even if you switched mid year, you could contribute $6650 during that year total to the two HSAs. That can be divided any way you want as long as the total does not exceed that maximum for the year. You can contribute an extra $1000 if you are over 55 years old. (I should probably also mention that you can still make contributions for the 2015 year until April 15, 2016, because it's relevant to most who would read this. Also you can only contribute a percentage of that limit matching the percentage of months that you are covered, but if you are covered for the last month of the year, you can contribute the full amount as long as you are covered for the ENTIRE following year.)"
},
{
"docid": "6454",
"title": "",
"text": "has very little idea about how much we earn and how high up we are in terms of income percentile. The first part of this sentence is tough to understand. My daughter was 12 when she told us what she estimated our income to be. She looked up the price of our home, worked backwards using conservative numbers, and was pretty close. Here you are saying your wife doesn't know the family income? Percentiles are meaningless. There are $60k couples who donate 10%, and there are $300k earners who are not charitable at all, and don't even save. It's time to have a general budget conversation with her. Perhaps starting with the rate of savings, and show how there's room for charity. If your charitable desire is based on a religious compulsion, share that as well, the 10% is what many feel commanded to share by their maker, and feel that it comes off the top regardless of their income level. In reality, this issue is not financial, it's about open dialog between 2 people. Money is difficult for some to discuss, but you need to start somewhere."
},
{
"docid": "62047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think this question is perfectly on topic, and probably has been asked and answered many times. However, I cannot help myself. Here are some basics however: Personal Finance is not only about math. As a guy who \"\"took vector calculus just for fun\"\", I have learned that superior math skills do not translate into superior net worth. Personal finance is about 50% behavior. Take a look at the housing crisis, car loans, or payday lenders and you will understand that the desire to be accepted by others often trumps the math surrounding a transaction. Outline your goals What is it that you want in life? A pile of money or to retire early? What does your business look like? How much cash will you need? Do you want to own a ton of rental properties? How does all this happen (set intermediate goals). Then get on a budget A budget is a plan to spend your money in advance. Stick to it. From there you can see how much money you have to implement various goals. Are your goals to aggressive? This is really important as people have a tendency to spend more money then they have. Often times when people receive a bonus at work, they spend that one bonus on two or three times over. A budget will prevent this from happening. Get an Emergency Fund Without an emergency fund, you be subject to the financial whims of people involved in your own life and that of the broader marketplace. Once you have one, you are free to invest with impunity and have less stress in a world that deals out plenty. Bad things will happen to you financially, protect against them. The best first investments are simple: Invest in yourself. Find a way to make a very healthy income with upward mobility. Also get out and stay out of debt. These things are not sexy, but they pay off in the long run. The next best investment is also simple: Index funds. These become the bench mark for all other investments. If you do not stand a good chance of beating the S&P 500 index fund, why bother? Just dump the money in the fund and sleep well at night.\""
},
{
"docid": "242011",
"title": "",
"text": "An emergency fund is about managing risk. What would you do if your furnace, water heater, and cars all broke down at the same time? Being in Michigan, I can imagine that you wouldn't want to take cold showers, heat the entire house by wood fire, and walk to work every day. So how do you manage this risk? What would happen if you lost your job and couldn't find one for a few months? By only having $5k in the bank in an emergency fund, you are putting your family at risk. If these sorts of things happened, you would be in trouble. You would have to borrow money either hurting equity in the home that you have worked hard to build up, or by some other means. You and your spouse should sit down and decide what a good emergency fund looks like for your family. A reserve of 3-6 months of expenses is a good emergency fund. This could cover your family in the event of a lost job while you look for a new one. It would also cover you when Murphy strikes and things break down all at the same time. Once you and your spouse have determined how much you want to set aside, you two must determine how you will get there. Maybe you put in some extra hours at work, maybe you lower the retirement contributions temporarily, maybe you try to pay off the car as quickly as possible then put what you were paying on the car into the emergency fund. It will likely take a mix of things to get you there. You don't have to get it done in a day, a month, or even a year. But once you have that emergency fund fully funded, you will feel better. What may be a catastrophe now will be a minor annoyance with a fully funded emergency fund. Finally, I'd recommend going to your bank and setting up a separate account for this emergency fund. A separate account specifically labeled as your emergency fund. This way you will think twice before spending it on a non-emergency."
},
{
"docid": "463954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes and no, go look up how much AT&T (didn't) spend on infrastructure right about the time they locked in the (then) exclusive iPhone deal. They were making money hand over fist due to the deal and spending at a record low on building out infrastructure to support the new users, and the new demand for mobile data. They went to far as to get the app review team to look for apps that used \"\"too much\"\" (but they would never say how much was too much) data over the cell network and reject them.\""
},
{
"docid": "531299",
"title": "",
"text": "I would second the advice to not do this. Real estate ownership is complex to begin with, involving a constant stream of maintenance, financing, and other decisions. It is difficult enough to do for a single individual or a family as a unit (a couple), but at least spouses are forced to compromise. Friends are not, and you can end up with long-running conflicts and impasses. Financial transactions of any kind impose tensions on relationships, and friendships are no exception. If you want your friendship to survivie, do not sacrifice it to the financial arrangement which seems like a good idea at the moment. My advice would be to steer clear, no matter how attractive on the surface the deal might look. Focus on your own individual finances and use discipline and patience to save the amount needed for acquiring a separate investment property. But it will be 100% yours, and will save tons of headache. Since you are still considering this deal, it's a great time to politely change your mind and walk away - believe me, a few minutes of inconvenience will save you years of frustration. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "222030",
"title": "",
"text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional."
},
{
"docid": "504208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If psychologically there is no difference to you between cash and debit (you should test this over a couple of months on yourself and spouse to make sure), then I suggest two debit cards (one for you and spouse) on your main or separate checking account. If you use Mint you can set budgets for each category (envelope) and when a purchase is made Mint will automatically categorize that transaction and deduct that amount from the correct budget. For example: If you have a \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget set at $100 per month and you use the debit at McDonalds, Mint should automatically categorize it as \"\"Fast Food\"\" and deduct the amount from the \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget that you set. If it can't determine a category or gets it wrong, you can just select the proper category. Mint has an iPhone (also Android and Windows phone) app that I find very easy to use. Many people state that they don't have this psychologically difference between spending cash and debit/credit, but I would say that most actually do, especially with small purchases. It doesn't have anything to do with intellect or knowing that you are actually spending money. It has more to do with tangibility, and the physical act of handing over cash. You may not add that soda and candy bar to your purchase if you have visible cash in your wallet that will disappear more quickly. I lived in Germany for 2 years before debit cards were around or common. I'm a sharp guy and even though I knew that I paid $100 for the 152 DM, it still kind of felt like spending Monopoly money, especially considering that in the US we are used to coins normally being 25 cents or less and in Germany coins are up to 10 DM (almost $10) and are used more frequently than paper.\""
},
{
"docid": "388414",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I appreciate the actually reasonable initial response. I've been consistently called a fake and a fraud mostly by, as you can probably guess, my competitors and my ex who has turned genuinely psycho. She and her father have now made the news for being directly connected to well documented international and American human rights violations, her father being directly connected to apparently a police chiefs admitted systematic protected records falsification/tampering/destruction and so much else. Those two groups arent exactly mutually exclusive at the moment. Her father works in PR/lobbying and she basically tried to make it a goal to ruin me. Why you might ask? Thats a great question. Could have something to do with the money I make people and people potentially owing me more than a few million. You really have to also consider though that would be an absurdly small price to pay for a billion especially if it took about 20 min to deliver in just that instance. Also the fact that she couldnt keep her clothes on to save her life after that point. All of the fake/fraud rhetoric is despite the fact, and probably because, I literally completed industry leading and often freely available open source economic work for no pay for several years as well as my comp (when I actually bill) being largely entirely performance based which almost nobody in the industry will even contemplate. Im not even that smart I just basically as it appears comparably dont have a sudden compulsive need to actively feel like I'm causing problems for people or just bullshit people frankly. Quite the opposite. A good number of the people who have tried to discredit or defame me in some way, if they knew the cause of this situation, probably wouldnt exactly be happy with it. Especially so considering how much money its likely very tangibly cost them just largely due to a psycho ex. On an anecdotal basis, despite previously knowing this was reflected in the data, I can hardly think of more of a good reason to just actually work with people and see how it goes than this. All of its to basically say I'm sure a guy (and his company) who is that wealthy publicly has had a few situations that make his life complicated and some probably without any good reason. You might have missed out. I know a few very skilled people who went to work for them. If you were offered to be flown out to them for an interview like that (again), definitely go (especially if you have fallback(s)) and just see what they are willing to do to address your concerns. I know Amazon being stressful is a common thing thats said; however, Amazon isnt a dumb company. They need skilled people and if it makes sense for them it wouldnt surprise me if they could figure something out that would work for both of you. Plus you can always quit as opposed to some things that you cant just say \"\"stop\"\" or \"\"be reasonable\"\" and have it resolved in a few weeks or less. I hope this helps you in some way.\""
},
{
"docid": "418328",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes."
}
] |
4011 | How can I deal with a spouse who compulsively spends? | [
{
"docid": "470",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Based on the conversations in the comments, I believe a pragmatic solution would be the best immediate course of action, while still working on the long term addiction issues. The first step is to get your husband to agree to give you all of his credit cards and let you manage the money for a set period of time, say 3 months, to see how it goes. (In my experience people are more likely to agree to being uncomfortable for a finite period of time, rather than indefinitely.) Step 2 is to provide him a means for making purchases on his own, but with a limited budget. Here are some examples: Perhaps a combination of the above options would work best. Another thing to consider is to set up alerts with your bank so that you are notified of certain purchases (or all) that are made by your husband. This varies by bank, but nowadays most will allow you to receive text/email immediately when the purchase happens, and can be set to certain amounts or categories. There is a definite psychological difference between, \"\"If I buy this, my spouse will find out at the end of the month and berate me.\"\" and \"\"If I buy this, my spouse is going to run in here in 30 seconds and berate me.\"\" The latter might actually be a deterrent on its own, and you may likely have the opportunity to undo the purchase if you wish to. As a side note, it's important to realize that the above suggestions are still allowing for some limited amount of enabling and temptation to occur. If the addiction is such that it is hazardous to one's health (for example drugs or alcohol addiction), then I don't believe this would be the best course of action. These suggestions are based on my impression that the biggest concern at the moment is financial, and I believe these ideas help to mitigate that. Good luck.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "388414",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I appreciate the actually reasonable initial response. I've been consistently called a fake and a fraud mostly by, as you can probably guess, my competitors and my ex who has turned genuinely psycho. She and her father have now made the news for being directly connected to well documented international and American human rights violations, her father being directly connected to apparently a police chiefs admitted systematic protected records falsification/tampering/destruction and so much else. Those two groups arent exactly mutually exclusive at the moment. Her father works in PR/lobbying and she basically tried to make it a goal to ruin me. Why you might ask? Thats a great question. Could have something to do with the money I make people and people potentially owing me more than a few million. You really have to also consider though that would be an absurdly small price to pay for a billion especially if it took about 20 min to deliver in just that instance. Also the fact that she couldnt keep her clothes on to save her life after that point. All of the fake/fraud rhetoric is despite the fact, and probably because, I literally completed industry leading and often freely available open source economic work for no pay for several years as well as my comp (when I actually bill) being largely entirely performance based which almost nobody in the industry will even contemplate. Im not even that smart I just basically as it appears comparably dont have a sudden compulsive need to actively feel like I'm causing problems for people or just bullshit people frankly. Quite the opposite. A good number of the people who have tried to discredit or defame me in some way, if they knew the cause of this situation, probably wouldnt exactly be happy with it. Especially so considering how much money its likely very tangibly cost them just largely due to a psycho ex. On an anecdotal basis, despite previously knowing this was reflected in the data, I can hardly think of more of a good reason to just actually work with people and see how it goes than this. All of its to basically say I'm sure a guy (and his company) who is that wealthy publicly has had a few situations that make his life complicated and some probably without any good reason. You might have missed out. I know a few very skilled people who went to work for them. If you were offered to be flown out to them for an interview like that (again), definitely go (especially if you have fallback(s)) and just see what they are willing to do to address your concerns. I know Amazon being stressful is a common thing thats said; however, Amazon isnt a dumb company. They need skilled people and if it makes sense for them it wouldnt surprise me if they could figure something out that would work for both of you. Plus you can always quit as opposed to some things that you cant just say \"\"stop\"\" or \"\"be reasonable\"\" and have it resolved in a few weeks or less. I hope this helps you in some way.\""
},
{
"docid": "524377",
"title": "",
"text": "*What* big picture? If you cannot tell the massive drain on an organization simply by looking, you are blind. How do companies make money? Income producers. Who are the income producers? There are three classes: People who assemble a product, people who charge billable hours, and people who make sales of more product and/or hours. That's it. Those are the only people who make money. If you make a product, you may absolutely require a packaging and shipping department to bring your product to market, but those people will not ever make you more product to sell or bring in more sales, so you run that department as lean as you can. How lean that is depends entirely on how you feel about business. (Personally, I think it's just as important to be able to enjoy the job as it is to make money, but that's neither here nor there.) Likewise maintenance, likewise IT, likewise accounting, marketing (although they'll never admit it), QC, legal, etc, etc, etc. The only -ONLY- function of management is to organize operations and deal with problems. The old PODS-C (Plan, Organize, Direct, Staff and Control(Finance)) falls entirely into organizing or dealing with problems. Management is there to empower people to do their jobs -and allow them to not deal with crap that is *not* their job- through proper organization and problem resolution. Just like shipping and maintenance and IT, you run your management staff as lean as possible while still accomplishing the goals of 1) organization to empower employees to do their jobs and 2) problem resolution. That's it. Once you get that done you don't need any more managers, ever, until you're not able to keep up with 1&2. So what's the purpose of middle management? They deal with fundamental problems, but they have no authority to resolve them. You are paying an entire class of employee to pass the buck up to Higher and wait, hoping that a decision will eventually come back down. Sometimes they are necessary to accomplish the goals of the organization (ie: during growth periods.) But they are ALWAYS a drain, and would always be better off replaced by experienced and motivated senior line employees with the authority to make reasonable decisions on the spot."
},
{
"docid": "54147",
"title": "",
"text": "You need a budget. You need to know how much you make and how much you spend. How much you earn and what you choose to spend you money on is your choice. You have your own tolerance for risk and your own taste and style, so lifestyle and what you own isn't something that we can answer. The key to your budget is to really understand where you money goes. Maybe you are the sort of person who needs to know down to the penny, maybe you are a person who rounds off. Either way you should have some idea. How should I make a budget? and How can I come up with a good personal (daily) budget? Once you know what you budget is, here are some pretty standard steps to get started. Each point is a full question in of itself, but these are to give you a place to start thinking and learning. You might have other priorities like a charity or other organizations that go into your priority like. Regardless of your career path and salary, you will need a budget to understand where you money is, where it goes, and how you can reach your goals and which goals are reasonable to have."
},
{
"docid": "398266",
"title": "",
"text": "He is just convincing people who likes to listen less science because thats what everyone is doing to influence the majority. Thats how companies sell products or ideas to make people buy products. Seeing how many people referring that documentary after starting a vegan diet I think they did a good job regardless of the bad science and fact stretching. People who are interested in science of the plant based/vegan diet can read books like the China Study of C. Campbell. I don't know how many average Joe will spend time to read and digest that."
},
{
"docid": "62047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think this question is perfectly on topic, and probably has been asked and answered many times. However, I cannot help myself. Here are some basics however: Personal Finance is not only about math. As a guy who \"\"took vector calculus just for fun\"\", I have learned that superior math skills do not translate into superior net worth. Personal finance is about 50% behavior. Take a look at the housing crisis, car loans, or payday lenders and you will understand that the desire to be accepted by others often trumps the math surrounding a transaction. Outline your goals What is it that you want in life? A pile of money or to retire early? What does your business look like? How much cash will you need? Do you want to own a ton of rental properties? How does all this happen (set intermediate goals). Then get on a budget A budget is a plan to spend your money in advance. Stick to it. From there you can see how much money you have to implement various goals. Are your goals to aggressive? This is really important as people have a tendency to spend more money then they have. Often times when people receive a bonus at work, they spend that one bonus on two or three times over. A budget will prevent this from happening. Get an Emergency Fund Without an emergency fund, you be subject to the financial whims of people involved in your own life and that of the broader marketplace. Once you have one, you are free to invest with impunity and have less stress in a world that deals out plenty. Bad things will happen to you financially, protect against them. The best first investments are simple: Invest in yourself. Find a way to make a very healthy income with upward mobility. Also get out and stay out of debt. These things are not sexy, but they pay off in the long run. The next best investment is also simple: Index funds. These become the bench mark for all other investments. If you do not stand a good chance of beating the S&P 500 index fund, why bother? Just dump the money in the fund and sleep well at night.\""
},
{
"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": "444796",
"title": "",
"text": "If I had a business and was able to claim a feature, I would. It's simple marketing. If in fact, opting out helped your score, the site would promote that feature. Soft pulls for prescreened offers are not counted. No more than my constant peek at my score through Credit Karma. Opt out, if you wish. The benefit of course is less mail, which saves trees. Less risk of identity theft, someone can take the application and try to forge from there. Less risk of an infected paper cut opening this mail (don't ask.) I am a compulsive mail shredder, so I peek and these and shred. A year ago I received an offer of $30,000 zero interest, max transfer fee $50. I sent the entire sum to my 5% mortgage. Now I refinanced and paying that back. It saved me $1500 over the year. Too much trouble for some, but how long does it take to make $1500? For 40% of this country's families, that's a week's pay. The monthly extra bill didn't bother me. This last paragraph is an anecdote, not so much addressing question. I did that first."
},
{
"docid": "498314",
"title": "",
"text": "Dealing with an unfaithful cheating partner or spouse can be a very very painful experience, especially if the two of you have been together for a long time. But, once the evidence is evident enough to seek for answers of the betrayal, you should not lose your strength and peace of mind."
},
{
"docid": "21288",
"title": "",
"text": "A gift between spouses has no tax implications. If one spouse dies the inheritance tax is always zero no matter how much of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Gift taxes are actually related to estate taxes, so a gift no matter how large never requires filing any tax forms or paying any taxes."
},
{
"docid": "6454",
"title": "",
"text": "has very little idea about how much we earn and how high up we are in terms of income percentile. The first part of this sentence is tough to understand. My daughter was 12 when she told us what she estimated our income to be. She looked up the price of our home, worked backwards using conservative numbers, and was pretty close. Here you are saying your wife doesn't know the family income? Percentiles are meaningless. There are $60k couples who donate 10%, and there are $300k earners who are not charitable at all, and don't even save. It's time to have a general budget conversation with her. Perhaps starting with the rate of savings, and show how there's room for charity. If your charitable desire is based on a religious compulsion, share that as well, the 10% is what many feel commanded to share by their maker, and feel that it comes off the top regardless of their income level. In reality, this issue is not financial, it's about open dialog between 2 people. Money is difficult for some to discuss, but you need to start somewhere."
},
{
"docid": "42814",
"title": "",
"text": "IRS Publication 969 gives all the details about HSA accounts and High Deductible plans: According to your question you are covered by a plan that can have an HSA. There a few points of interest for you: Contributions to an HSA Any eligible individual can contribute to an HSA. For an employee's HSA, the employee, the employee's employer, or both may contribute to the employee's HSA in the same year. For an HSA established by a self-employed (or unemployed) individual, the individual can contribute. Family members or any other person may also make contributions on behalf of an eligible individual. Contributions to an HSA must be made in cash. Contributions of stock or property are not allowed. That means that yes you could make a contribution to the HSA. Or if in the future you were the provider of the insurance you could have a HSA. Limit on Contributions For 2015, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,350. If you have family HDHP coverage you can contribute up to $6,650. It sounds like you have a family plan. Additional contribution. If you are an eligible individual who is age 55 or older at the end of your tax year, your contribution limit is increased by $1,000. Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2014 is $6,550. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouses' Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. The rules for married people apply only if both spouses are eligible individuals. If both spouses are 55 or older and not enrolled in Medicare, each spouse's contribution limit is increased by the additional contribution. If both spouses meet the age requirement, the total contributions under family coverage cannot be more than $8,550. Each spouse must make the additional contribution to his or her own HSA. Note: most of the document was written with 2014 numbers, but sometimes they mention 2015 numbers. If both are covered under a single plan it should be funded by the person that has the plan. They may get money from their employer. They may be able to have the employer cover the monthly fee that most HSA administrators charge. The non employee can make contributions to the account but care must be taken to make ure the annual limits aren't exceeded. HSA contributions from the employees paycheck may reduce the social security tax paid by the employee. If the non-employee is self employed you will have to see how the contribution impacts the social security situation for the couple. If the non-employee is 55 or older it can make sense to throw in that extra $1000. The employer may not allow it to come from the paycheck contributions because they wouldn't necessarily know the age of the spouse, they may put a maximum limit based on the age of the employee."
},
{
"docid": "30394",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods. The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things. Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in. I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub. There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view. If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to \"\"move money around\"\" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal. If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler. At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.)\""
},
{
"docid": "126455",
"title": "",
"text": "Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question: how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me. I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit. I'm also more a sticker for time. I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role. He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees. Spouse2 was appalled. Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point: talk about how to manage your money, before you marry. Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget. I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget. Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things:"
},
{
"docid": "484201",
"title": "",
"text": "Your brokerage might be cautious about allowing you to loan your IRA money in a Peer-to-Peer lending deal because it might result in a prohibited transaction (e.g. the other Peer is your son-in-law; for the purposes of IRAs, the spouse of a lineal descendant is treated the same as you, and the transaction will be treated as if you have borrowed money from your IRA). If you want to put the money into a lending club, then there might be issues of how the club is structured, e.g. who makes the decisions as to whom the money is loaned to. Such issues don't arise if you are putting the money into a money-market mutual fund, for example, but with new-fangled institutions such as lending clubs, your brokerage might just being cautious. If you want to open an IRA account directly with a lending club, check if the club offers IRA accounts at all. For this, they will likely need to have a custodian company that will handle all the IRA paperwork. For example, the custodian of IRA accounts in Vanguard mutual funds is not the fund or even Vanguard itself but a separate company named Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company. I am sure other large firms have similar set-ups. Whether your pet Peer-to-Peer lending club has something similar set up already is something you should look into. This part of the answer applies to an earlier version of the question in which the OP said that he wanted to invest in precious metals. Be careful in what you invest in when you say you want to invest in precious metals; in refusing to buy precious metals for you in your IRA, your brokerage (as your fiduciary) might be refusing to engage in a prohibited transaction on your behalf. Investments in what are called collectibles are deemed to have been distributed to you by the IRA, and if this is an early distribution, then penalties also apply in addition to the income tax. Publication 590 says Collectibles. These include: Exception. Your IRA can invest in one, one-half, one-quarter, or one-tenth ounce U.S. gold coins, or one-ounce silver coins minted by the Treasury Department. It can also invest in certain platinum coins and certain gold, silver, palladium, and platinum bullion. So, make sure that your new IRA custodian does allow you to buy (say) titanium or Krugerrands in your IRA if that is your pleasure."
},
{
"docid": "204169",
"title": "",
"text": "A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company."
},
{
"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": "418281",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\""
},
{
"docid": "70668",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "289064",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\""
}
] |
4011 | How can I deal with a spouse who compulsively spends? | [
{
"docid": "67699",
"title": "",
"text": "Perhaps it seems harsh, but I would get separate accounts: credit cards, savings, retirement, all the way down the line. Your only joint account should be for paying mortgage/rent and other bills. And as another poster said, delete all your saved info from browsers &c. Perhaps you even need to set up separate user ids. If this really is a case of compulsive spending, curing it is likely to be a long, hard process, if it's even possible. You need to put yourself in a position where you won't be dragged down with him."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "150450",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important. That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured. My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :)"
},
{
"docid": "204169",
"title": "",
"text": "A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company."
},
{
"docid": "365333",
"title": "",
"text": "@ Chris: Companies like Keane, ours, and others know where to look for these funds and where to ask at the correct agencies that are holding this money that is not part of the public links that you have access to. This is how we find this information. Our types of companies spend significant time, money and resources in finding out about the money, then finding who it actually belongs to (because it does not always belong to who is mentioned on the list) and then finding the correct individual. @ jdsweet: I apologize if you think this is a marketing ploy. It is not. Our company doesn't even take phone calls from people that want us to find them money. Only if we contact someone, because at that time we're confident that the person we touch base with is due the funds. Again, I am not plugging our company, but trying to let Neil know that in some cases he is right, you don't need a third party to claim funds for you - if you can find them. In this case, he has looked and cannot find them. Keane is charging a fair amount to retrieve funds he cannot find and doesn't know about and is not charging him anything to do all the work. Again, as mentioned above, the direct answer is that we know how to access information and lists that have this money hidden from the public because the agency holding the funds doesn't want you to know about it so that they can escheat the funds. Escheating is the state's legal way to confiscate your money. See, if you don't put in a claim for the money (depending on what type it is and where it is located) the agency and state holding the funds has certain time frames for you to get the money. If you don't, again, they get to keep it and that is what they want despite what they say. That is why there is approximately $33 Billion that is known to the public and really $1 Trillion that's out there. I apologize if you think that this is a plug for my company, it's not because we're not looking for calls, we make them. I'm also not asking Neil for his business. From all accounts on my side, this seems like a fair deal."
},
{
"docid": "55327",
"title": "",
"text": "Your spouse is eligible for an HSA even if you have one as long as she is covered by a qualified high-deductible plan. In the case that you both had HSAs you would be limited in how much you contribute each year, but both can have accounts. In 2015, you could each contribute $3350 to your separate HSA plans. If you have a combined plan, and even if you switched mid year, you could contribute $6650 during that year total to the two HSAs. That can be divided any way you want as long as the total does not exceed that maximum for the year. You can contribute an extra $1000 if you are over 55 years old. (I should probably also mention that you can still make contributions for the 2015 year until April 15, 2016, because it's relevant to most who would read this. Also you can only contribute a percentage of that limit matching the percentage of months that you are covered, but if you are covered for the last month of the year, you can contribute the full amount as long as you are covered for the ENTIRE following year.)"
},
{
"docid": "498314",
"title": "",
"text": "Dealing with an unfaithful cheating partner or spouse can be a very very painful experience, especially if the two of you have been together for a long time. But, once the evidence is evident enough to seek for answers of the betrayal, you should not lose your strength and peace of mind."
},
{
"docid": "242011",
"title": "",
"text": "An emergency fund is about managing risk. What would you do if your furnace, water heater, and cars all broke down at the same time? Being in Michigan, I can imagine that you wouldn't want to take cold showers, heat the entire house by wood fire, and walk to work every day. So how do you manage this risk? What would happen if you lost your job and couldn't find one for a few months? By only having $5k in the bank in an emergency fund, you are putting your family at risk. If these sorts of things happened, you would be in trouble. You would have to borrow money either hurting equity in the home that you have worked hard to build up, or by some other means. You and your spouse should sit down and decide what a good emergency fund looks like for your family. A reserve of 3-6 months of expenses is a good emergency fund. This could cover your family in the event of a lost job while you look for a new one. It would also cover you when Murphy strikes and things break down all at the same time. Once you and your spouse have determined how much you want to set aside, you two must determine how you will get there. Maybe you put in some extra hours at work, maybe you lower the retirement contributions temporarily, maybe you try to pay off the car as quickly as possible then put what you were paying on the car into the emergency fund. It will likely take a mix of things to get you there. You don't have to get it done in a day, a month, or even a year. But once you have that emergency fund fully funded, you will feel better. What may be a catastrophe now will be a minor annoyance with a fully funded emergency fund. Finally, I'd recommend going to your bank and setting up a separate account for this emergency fund. A separate account specifically labeled as your emergency fund. This way you will think twice before spending it on a non-emergency."
},
{
"docid": "231720",
"title": "",
"text": "It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home. It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control. Good work there. Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this? They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains. You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan. You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate. We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me. Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes. I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2? Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2? I would do anything to avoid PMI. Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B. If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-. With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+."
},
{
"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": "524377",
"title": "",
"text": "*What* big picture? If you cannot tell the massive drain on an organization simply by looking, you are blind. How do companies make money? Income producers. Who are the income producers? There are three classes: People who assemble a product, people who charge billable hours, and people who make sales of more product and/or hours. That's it. Those are the only people who make money. If you make a product, you may absolutely require a packaging and shipping department to bring your product to market, but those people will not ever make you more product to sell or bring in more sales, so you run that department as lean as you can. How lean that is depends entirely on how you feel about business. (Personally, I think it's just as important to be able to enjoy the job as it is to make money, but that's neither here nor there.) Likewise maintenance, likewise IT, likewise accounting, marketing (although they'll never admit it), QC, legal, etc, etc, etc. The only -ONLY- function of management is to organize operations and deal with problems. The old PODS-C (Plan, Organize, Direct, Staff and Control(Finance)) falls entirely into organizing or dealing with problems. Management is there to empower people to do their jobs -and allow them to not deal with crap that is *not* their job- through proper organization and problem resolution. Just like shipping and maintenance and IT, you run your management staff as lean as possible while still accomplishing the goals of 1) organization to empower employees to do their jobs and 2) problem resolution. That's it. Once you get that done you don't need any more managers, ever, until you're not able to keep up with 1&2. So what's the purpose of middle management? They deal with fundamental problems, but they have no authority to resolve them. You are paying an entire class of employee to pass the buck up to Higher and wait, hoping that a decision will eventually come back down. Sometimes they are necessary to accomplish the goals of the organization (ie: during growth periods.) But they are ALWAYS a drain, and would always be better off replaced by experienced and motivated senior line employees with the authority to make reasonable decisions on the spot."
},
{
"docid": "222153",
"title": "",
"text": "You need the services of a hard-nosed financial planner. A good one will defend your interests against the legions of creeps trying to separate you from your money. How can you tell whether such a person is working in your best interest? Here are some ways. You'll be able to tell pretty quickly whether the planner lets you get through the same story you told us. The ability to listen carefully without interrupting is a good way to tell whether the planner is going to honor your needs. You're looking for a human service professional, not an investment or business guru. There are planners who specialize in helping people navigate big changes in their financial situation. Some of the best of those planners are women. (Many of their customers are people whose spouses recently died. But they also serve people in your situation. Ask if they work with other people like you.) Of course, you need to take the planner's advice, especially about spending and saving levels."
},
{
"docid": "14317",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no common sense in Michigan and money does reveal character. Take a Michigan based business for example of more outrageous behavior that our State reps overlook. Frankenmuth Insurance company located in Frankenmuth Michigan purports in its commitment statement to policyholders to: Frankenmuth Insurance built a solid foundation adhering to its fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, unsurpassed customer service and conservative business practices. With much emphasis on Corporate Governance and common sense, this company located in Frankenmuth Michigan regularly violates its own commitment to policyholders by engaging in egregious conflicts of interest with board members that not only lack integrity, but are of blatant poor judgment for personal gain and detrimental to policyholders. The only policyholders invited to their annual policyholder meetings are employees and retirees of the company so that no one will vote against or challenge their elections. The board members are taken on annual trips with their spouses the week of the annual board meeting wherein on the last day, they (the board) are asked to vote on executive pay and bonuses. After a week of being wined and dined at exclusive resorts such as the One and Only Palmilla in Cabo and the Winn in Vegas the Frankenmuth executives know that the board will give them exorbitant raises and bonuses which is information they again refuse to disclose because of the public outrage their behavior would cause, adversely impacting their business. Getting what they want from the board afforded CEO Stanton a 12,000 sq foot retirement home newly constructed on a 1 million dollar plot of land at Bay Harbor overlooking Lake Michigan. One trip that Frankenmuth executives took 90 people on (those people were executives and spouses and agents and spouses) cost 5 million dollars for one week. That translates to about $53K per person. Bill Schutte pretends to care about the taxpayers dollars and how they are spent yet he thus far has refused to require Frankenmuth to disclose it's egregious spending of lavish trips and entertainment and or investigate the clear conflicts of interest with its board that are costing the taxpayers of Michigan huge dollars in increased premiums. On top of all of this, Frankenmuth admittedly has a computer system that does not track its employees use of policyholder information meaning the public is not safe from potential identity theft nor is the company safe from internal theft. Frankenmuth uses credit reports to jack prices of policyholders up - someones credit has no bearing on their ability to drive and the executives are laughing all the way to the bank with the board in their pocket from canned elections."
},
{
"docid": "70668",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "418281",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\""
},
{
"docid": "477221",
"title": "",
"text": "Shopping is easy, I don't want to buy it, carry it around, store it in my home or wear it. It is just an opinion about whatever the shopping is for. When I don't want to spend the money on dining out, I just say I am broke and I will catch up next time. Since they are my friends they understand and don't get too upset. (like msemack says, if they get upset about it I don't think I would really care to spend time with them anyway) While I am a big fan or eating at home and being cheap, I also recognize that my desire to spend money and have fun can't be suppressed for too long: make a budget item for having fun and spend some of your money on a good time with your friends and family. Make a date night with your spouse or friends and control when and where you go so your can control your budget."
},
{
"docid": "223841",
"title": "",
"text": "The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that."
},
{
"docid": "444796",
"title": "",
"text": "If I had a business and was able to claim a feature, I would. It's simple marketing. If in fact, opting out helped your score, the site would promote that feature. Soft pulls for prescreened offers are not counted. No more than my constant peek at my score through Credit Karma. Opt out, if you wish. The benefit of course is less mail, which saves trees. Less risk of identity theft, someone can take the application and try to forge from there. Less risk of an infected paper cut opening this mail (don't ask.) I am a compulsive mail shredder, so I peek and these and shred. A year ago I received an offer of $30,000 zero interest, max transfer fee $50. I sent the entire sum to my 5% mortgage. Now I refinanced and paying that back. It saved me $1500 over the year. Too much trouble for some, but how long does it take to make $1500? For 40% of this country's families, that's a week's pay. The monthly extra bill didn't bother me. This last paragraph is an anecdote, not so much addressing question. I did that first."
},
{
"docid": "70556",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are at the point that many millions of people are at (and where I used to be) - you have no idea where your money is going. You just spend, spend, spend until there's nothing left, and/or you borrow more to keep going. There are general rules of thumb on how much house and car you can afford, but there is a great deal of personal variation. Housing and utility costs vary greatly from location to location. City-dwellers can use public transit instead of buying and maintaining a car. How much other debt do you have that you need to pay off? Do you have expenses that are not common (e.g. medical bills)? A more personal approach would be to figure out your own budget. The first step is creating a written budget. Figure out how much you can spend in total (i.e. your take-home pay) and the start allocating that money to expenses until you run out. I started by looking backwards. Look back at how much you spent on each category each month. List them in order of priority (e.g. food, health, housing, utilities, transportation, entertainment, everything else). If the money runs out you either stop spending or reduce spending in another category (e.g. can you cook a few extra meals at home instead of going out? Can you take lunch to work instead of a drive-through?) The amount you have left over now indicates how much more house and car you can afford. Once you get to a point where you can budget comfortably then you can start looking at saving for retirement and other long-term goals. This worked for me (and highlighted some areas where I overspent) because I had good categorized records (ironically because I used credit cards incessantly, which I mostly stopped once I created a budget). If you don't have good records, then you have to estimate. How much do you think you spend on food, gas, etc. each month? Then set aside that much and once it's gone don't spend anymore. Now obviously you're not going to stop eating, but the idea is to plan ahead and realize \"\"I have only $20 left to spend on food this month - maybe I shouldn't go to the movies\"\". It takes lots of practice, and you won't get it right very often. If you have enough left over, you can set aside some as a \"\"cushion\"\" in case you do go over your budget, but if you want true financial discipline you should start by reducing other categories first. This is not easy by any means. It will take moths of practice and trial-and-error to get to a point that you're comfortable with the lifestyle that you can afford. So in the end, there are only two variables in your equation - income and outflow. Do you want more house? Either spend less on other things or increase your income.\""
},
{
"docid": "404102",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no."
},
{
"docid": "376581",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Ok, then I was not clear enough. I will preface my explanation with some ethos sounding pathos: I don't know much about cars in general, and less so about SAABs. I was interested in following the thread and what you wrote, but there was a contradiction so I couldn't. I listed the contradicting terms - including the possibility that the error was in my understanding of them (\"\"Or am I missing something - am I wrong?\"\"), and I addressed you since you through your husband has expertise in the matter and you are willing to share it here (thanks for that). Simply put, the premises were: From you: **Your car is well maintained.** Assumed by me: Your (spouse's) expertise means that **you won't buy a car that is known to fail despite maintenance.** **You bought a SAAB.** So it should follow that *you own a well maintained, non-failing SAAB.* But you also state: **Your SAAB is failing.** (I'm a bit insulted to be called a prick for asking about that. Regardless, if you can be more specific I can perhaps offer help on how to maintain electrical systems. I have a vaguely related degree and work/life experience, however it depends very much on the type of system, its circumstances and your circumstances. Unless you were \"\"trolling\"\".) The solution to the contradiction seems to be as given by redditor CC440, that I was wrong in my assumed premise, that you would and did buy a car known to fail. However, CC440 insinuated that your husband is an idiot, I did the opposite. It's the opposite of idiotic to take a good deal. (Apologies for before-the-fact labelling \"\"$1500 with heated leather seats\"\" as \"\"cheap funkiness\"\", it was unintentional, and I don't know if it is offensive.)\""
}
] |
4019 | How and Should I Invest (As a college 18 year old with minimal living expenses)? | [
{
"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": "472559",
"title": "",
"text": ". Stop it. You're the only one mischaracterizing. You tried to pin a $15 minimum wage on me when I vehemently disagreed with it. The cost of college for me and my 2 brothers was over $500,000 because we all went to great schools that were 40-50K a year. So I'll take my 18 years of public education (full of AP classes by the way), followed by my four in college, which got me an economics degree, and I'll keep laughing at you for failing so miserably at being condescending. If letting business do whatever they wanted worked, trickle down economics wouldn't fail as regularly as it does. We didn't regulate the banks in the early thousands. We came close to a depression. We didn't regulate businesses in the progressive era, And we got disgusting meat processing plants and the triangle shirtwaist factory fire. You understand no ones equalizing outcome. I just believe that if you work 9 hours a day 6 days a week you should have a decent standard of living. I can be hysterical, but your wrong, you suck at being a dick and you just don't want to pay more taxes. There's not economic reasoning behind it. Kansas's governor had the same thinking as you. Deregulate. Let business do their thing. Cut taxes for th wealthy. Kansas's residences sat on that money and Kansas is in crisis right now because of it. That's because more money into businesses doesn't mean they'll increase production especially if it doesn't increase efficiency, or did you not learn about that? Every time we deregulate businesses run amok and then the government has to bail them out with tax payer money, only so they can turn around and lobby for eased regulations. Or does the result of the 08 Financial crisis not ring a bell? You do understand most of your taxes go to subsidize billions of dollars for corporations like Walmart right? Where's your outrage? And you're talking about looking at history? Son, lmao. You're an idiot."
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "17731",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not downvoting you because I can relate, in a way, to your post and I think this is a good topic to have on this site. We had a question a couple weeks ago where someone, like you, took some friend's money to trade with but didn't know how to give the money back or calculate the net-return. It is not smart to take and invest other people's money when you have zero industry experience and when you do not understand the legal requirements of handling someone else's money. Within the first 12 months of my brokerage account I had returned something like 150%, I doubled my money plus a bit. The next year was something like -20%; if I remember correctly the next year was worse, then up again for year four. Year 1 I thought I was a genius and had figured this whole thing out, year 2 put me in my place and year 3 kicked me while I was down. You have 6 months of pretty solid returns, good for you. I don't think that means it's time to set up shop. Really, I think you need to sit down and think long and hard about the implications, legal and otherwise, of holding other people's money. Running a fund is significantly different than trading your own money. Retail investors don't, typically, have a good memory. Great, you made me 17% last year, and 25% the year before but right now I'm down 10%, so give me my money back because I would have been better off in an savings account this year. This is why index funds are in vogue right now. Lots of people have had money in active funds that have trailed or matched the \"\"safe and passive\"\" index funds, so they're angry. Retail folks get jittery the instant they lose money, no matter how much. You need to be ready to contend with \"\"What have you done for me lately?\"\" the instant something turns negative, no matter how positive your returns have been. At your stage in the game you should get a job and continue putting your own money in to your own system and be ready to lose some of it. I doubt there is anyone outside your immediate family who will hand a random 18 year-old kid any significant amount of money to trade their system based on 6 months of success; certainly not more than you have in there currently.\""
},
{
"docid": "113632",
"title": "",
"text": "First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be. The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out. In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct: your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings). Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you. The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption)."
},
{
"docid": "140135",
"title": "",
"text": "\">>Have enough funds to run the business and pay yourself the first year, plus 30% >This is going to vary wildly depending on the particular business. So much so that a rule of thumb would be impossible to define. Absolutely. One of the things that varies \"\"widely\"\" is what amount constitutes the **\"\"pay yourself the first year\"\"** -- which will fall anywhere on a wide spectrum from the low end that is essentially below poverty level (someone young, used to living as we used\\* to say \"\"like a college student\"\" -- needing only enough to cover a minimal \"\"survival\"\") to someone who has ridiculously extravagant needs (married with a family, McMansion mortgage and multiple \"\"new\"\" status vehicles, etc) that they expect to maintain -- and then the additional 30% grows in proportion *on top* of that subjective base figure. \\* I wrote \"\"used to say\"\" because we are talking about *back in the day* when \"\"living like a college student\"\" meant minimalist \"\"bare-bones\"\" needs, akin to a monastic/ascetic life: a shared small dorm/boarding house room with minimal furniture, NO partying, ZERO \"\"amenities\"\" (certainly no water parks with \"\"lazy rivers\"\", no \"\"food courts\"\", etc -- nothing like most US colleges and universities have today).\""
},
{
"docid": "38016",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not concede your money to your dad IF he is really wronging you - and we need much more detail to tell. This is the first lesson in life that actually following up on \"\"wrong\"\" things will save you thousands of dollars throughout your adulthood. It is really easy to turn the other way and be out a few thousand dollars. Then the hospital overbills you and you let it go and so on. Follow up, it is your money. The laws behind this are pretty cut and dry. Basically if you put money into one account and only your money was touching the account then it is your money. As a minor this is an expectation and once your turn 18 in the US you have a right to your money. That is given that the money was in the account at 18. So if your dad truly did not touch the account and withdraw the money before you turned 18, it is cut and dry. If your dad took money out before 18 or added his own money to the account it gets rather fuzzy since it is easy for dad to say that I took money out for your expenses. As for this being \"\"nuclear\"\" as keshlam suggests - he is right. His advice is fine but sets you up for people taking advantage of your throughout your life, especially your family. In fact the situation is already nuclear but you were the only thing the bomb hit. So talk to your dad. Explain that you will have to go and file a small claims trial if he does not agree to give you the money. If your situation is already over the top I would bring the paperwork with you filled out. (a person at your local clerk's office will help you find the right forms) You on the other hand better weigh this conversation. We \"\"internet peoples\"\" are only hearing one side of the story. We do not understand your situation at your home. We don't understand who pays for your car, gas, clothes, and room and board. You are 18, so there is no obligation for parents to pay for these things. If I had an 18 year old that had 3K in the bank under my name and they hadn't helped around the house in a year, didn't buy their car, had a poor attitude, and so on I would probably have the same action as your dad. Yea it's \"\"your money\"\" but is it really? When I was 18 I bought ALL my clothes, bought my car, bought my gas/insurance, and so on. I paid for my toothpaste. If this is where you are at and you help out around the house like an adult would then you have solid ground to stand on. If not... I would laugh if I were your dad. My first thought would be you want your money, that is fine. But you are paying rent. Car is gone, get your own. You would be paying for everything. But you would have \"\"your money\"\". So you have some pros and cons to weigh here and taking the money could cost you a TON of money in the future. However if your dad is just being a pure jerk (I kind of doubt this but who knows) then you have an obligation to fight for what is yours. (Note that the end goal of any meeting like this in your life shouldn't be court. It should be an agreement so that the right action is taken and both parties are happy. It could be very well that your dad would be happy with something that has nothing to do with the money. Also there are people with really really bad situations at their homes. A controlling parent is a pretty good \"\"bad\"\" situation and an easy one to solve at 18 - move out. If you don't want to move out then accept your family members, not complain about them. No matter how controlling your dad is your question spews of ungrateful teenager. I am sure you aren't that bad and I am sure your dad isn't that bad.) (And another note: In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting you drop the money issue. There is nothing worse than not talking about it even if you think your dad will kick you out of the house. Resentment building up in yourself or family is the worst possible thing. This needs to be dealt with.)\""
},
{
"docid": "7507",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I lived in Europe for 18 years. I had better care there than in the US for what I paid. Also, under the current system, taxpayers pay more to the government for healthcare than in other countries which have universal healthcare. Additionally, those 46% who don't pay taxes either have shit jobs or can afford a good accountant. A janitor or other \"\"low skill, low level\"\" worker isn't going to pay taxes because he's not making enough. Recent college graduates cannot afford a all around healthcare insurance because they don't have the money. You live in an economic society where every class level is inter-dependent. Paying them shit and telling them the society as a whole shouldn't help them is very selfish and short term sighted.\""
},
{
"docid": "173878",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "213165",
"title": "",
"text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal."
},
{
"docid": "348313",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that."
},
{
"docid": "4044",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc."
},
{
"docid": "468527",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two types of 529 programs. One where you put money aside each month. The one offered by your state may give you a tax break on you deposits. You can pick the one from any state, if you like their options better. During the next 18 years the focus the investment changes from risky to less risky to no risk. This happens automatically. The money can be used for tuition, room, board, books, fees. The 2nd type of 529 is also offered by a state but it is geared for a big lump sum payment when the child is young. This will cover full tuition and fees (not room and board, or books) at a state school. The deal is not as great if they child wants to go out of state, or you move, or they want to go to a private school. You don't lose everything, but you will have to make up the shortfall at the last minute. There are provisions for scholarship money. If you kid goes to West Point you haven't wasted the money in the 529. The money in either plan is ignored while calculating financial aid. Other options such as the Coverdell Education Savings account also exist. But they don't have the options and state tax breaks. Accounts in the child's name can impact the amount of financial aid offered, plus they could decide to spend the money on a car. The automatic investment shift for most of the state 529 plans does cover your question of how much risk to take. There are also ways to transfer the money to other siblings if one decides not to go to college. Keep in mind that the funds don't have to be spent as soon as they turn 18, they can wait a few years before enrolling in college."
},
{
"docid": "140738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\""
},
{
"docid": "422946",
"title": "",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation"
},
{
"docid": "385086",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This was a huge question for me when I graduated high school, should I buy a new or a used car? I opted for buying used. I purchased three cars in the span of 5 years the first two were used. First one was $1500, Honda, reliable for one year than problem after problem made it not worth it to keep. Second car was $2800, Subaru, had no problems for 18 months, then problems started around 130k miles, Headgasket $1800 fix, Fixed it and it still burnt oil. I stopped buying old clunkers after that. Finally I bought a Nissan Sentra for $5500, 30,000 miles, private owner. Over 5 years I found that the difference between your \"\"typical\"\" car for $1500 and the \"\"typical\"\" car you can buy for $5500 is actually a pretty big difference. Things to look for: Low mileage, one owner, recent repairs, search google known issues for the make and model based on the mileage of the car your reviewing, receipts, clean interior, buying from a private owner, getting a deal where they throw in winter tires for free so you already have a set are all things to look for. With that said, buying new is expensive for more than just the ticket price of the car. If you take a loan out you will also need to take out full insurance in order for the bank to loan you the car. This adds a LOT to the price of the car monthly. Depending on your views of insurance and how much you're willing to risk, buying your car outright should be a cheaper alternative over all than buying new. Save save save! Its very probably that the hassles of repair and surprise break downs will frustrate you enough to buy new or newer at some point. But like the previous response said, you worked hard to stay out of debt. I'd say save another grand, buy a decent car for $3000 and continue your wise spending habits! Try to sell your cars for more than you bought them for, look for good deals, buy and sell, work your way up to a newer more reliable car. Good luck.\""
},
{
"docid": "562934",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows."
},
{
"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": "340842",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I am sorry for your loss. At this time, worrying about money is probably the least of your concerns. It might be tempting to try to pay off all your debts at once, and while that would be satisfying, it would be a poor investment of your inheritance. When you have debt, you have to think about how much that debt is costing you to keep open. Since you have 0%APR on your student loan, it does not make sense to pay any more than the minimum payments. You may want to look into getting a personal loan to pay off your other personal debts. The interest rates for a loan will probably be much less than what you are paying currently. This will allow you to put a payment plan together that is affordable. You can also use your inheritance as collateral for the loan. Getting a loan will most likely give you a better credit rating as well. You may also be tempted to get a brand new sports car, but that would also not be a good idea at all. You should shop for a vehicle based on your current income, and not your savings. I believe you can get the same rates for an auto loan for a car up to 3 years old as a brand new car. It would be worth your while to shop for a quality used car from a reputable dealer. If it is a certified used car, you can usually carry the rest of the new car warranty. The biggest return on investment you have now is your employer sponsored 401(k) account. Find out how long it takes for you to become fully vested. Being vested means that you can leave your job and keep all of your employer contributions. If possible, max out, or at least contribute as much as you can afford to that fund to get employee matching. You should also stick with your job until you become fully vested. The money you have in retirement accounts does you no good when you are young. There is a significant penalty for early withdrawal, and that age is currently 59 1/2. Doing the math, it would be around 2052 when you would be able to have access to that money. You should hold onto a certain amount of your money and keep it in a higher interest rate savings account, or a money market account. You say that your living situation will change in the next year as well. Take full advantage of living as cheaply as you can. Don't make any unnecessary purchases, try to brown bag it to lunch instead of eating out, etc. Save as much as you can and put it into a savings account. You can use that money to put a down payment on a house, or for the security and first month's rent. Try not to spend any money from your savings, and try to support yourself as best as you can from your income. Make a budget for yourself and figure out how much you can spend every month. Don't factor in your savings into it. Your savings should be treated as an emergency fund. Since you have just completed school, and this is your first big job out of college, your income will most likely improve with time. It might make sense to job hop a few times to find the right position. You are much more likely to get a higher salary by changing jobs and employers than you are staying in the same one for your entire career. This generally is true, even if you are promoted at the by the same employer. If you do leave your current job, you would lose what your employer contributed if you are not vested. Even if that happened, you would still keep the portion that you contributed."
},
{
"docid": "483777",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast."
}
] |
4019 | How and Should I Invest (As a college 18 year old with minimal living expenses)? | [
{
"docid": "379948",
"title": "",
"text": "You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "463943",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\""
},
{
"docid": "178303",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\""
},
{
"docid": "505151",
"title": "",
"text": "Buddy I know how a student investment club works, my school had a great one but thanks for the explanation. Doesn't change the fact that a valuation by some college kids is meaningless, but you wouldn't understand that because you're still a 20 year old kid with no industry experience. I love that you're bragging about your college to someone who has already graduated and made it into the industry, shows you really have no accomplishments to speak of."
},
{
"docid": "407726",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a \"\"safe rate of withdrawal\"\"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.\""
},
{
"docid": "577479",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \"\"sense\"\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \"\"early\"\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \"\"living at home\"\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \"\"feel\"\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\""
},
{
"docid": "348313",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that."
},
{
"docid": "453051",
"title": "",
"text": "How much should my down payment be? Ideally 20% of the purchase price because with 20% of the purchase price, you don't have to pay a costly private mortgage insurance (PMI). If you don't have 20% down and come across a good property to purchase, it is still a good idea to go forward with purchasing with what you are comfortable with, because renting long term is generally never a good idea if you want to build wealth and become financially independent. How much should I keep in my emergency fund? People say 3-12 months of living expenses. Keep in mind though, in most cases, if you lose your job, you are entitled to unemployment benefits from the government. How long should my mortgage be? 30 year amortization is the best. You can always opt to pay more each month. But having that leverage with a 30 year loan can allow you to invest your savings in other opportunities, which can yield more than mortgage interest. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "173878",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "340842",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I am sorry for your loss. At this time, worrying about money is probably the least of your concerns. It might be tempting to try to pay off all your debts at once, and while that would be satisfying, it would be a poor investment of your inheritance. When you have debt, you have to think about how much that debt is costing you to keep open. Since you have 0%APR on your student loan, it does not make sense to pay any more than the minimum payments. You may want to look into getting a personal loan to pay off your other personal debts. The interest rates for a loan will probably be much less than what you are paying currently. This will allow you to put a payment plan together that is affordable. You can also use your inheritance as collateral for the loan. Getting a loan will most likely give you a better credit rating as well. You may also be tempted to get a brand new sports car, but that would also not be a good idea at all. You should shop for a vehicle based on your current income, and not your savings. I believe you can get the same rates for an auto loan for a car up to 3 years old as a brand new car. It would be worth your while to shop for a quality used car from a reputable dealer. If it is a certified used car, you can usually carry the rest of the new car warranty. The biggest return on investment you have now is your employer sponsored 401(k) account. Find out how long it takes for you to become fully vested. Being vested means that you can leave your job and keep all of your employer contributions. If possible, max out, or at least contribute as much as you can afford to that fund to get employee matching. You should also stick with your job until you become fully vested. The money you have in retirement accounts does you no good when you are young. There is a significant penalty for early withdrawal, and that age is currently 59 1/2. Doing the math, it would be around 2052 when you would be able to have access to that money. You should hold onto a certain amount of your money and keep it in a higher interest rate savings account, or a money market account. You say that your living situation will change in the next year as well. Take full advantage of living as cheaply as you can. Don't make any unnecessary purchases, try to brown bag it to lunch instead of eating out, etc. Save as much as you can and put it into a savings account. You can use that money to put a down payment on a house, or for the security and first month's rent. Try not to spend any money from your savings, and try to support yourself as best as you can from your income. Make a budget for yourself and figure out how much you can spend every month. Don't factor in your savings into it. Your savings should be treated as an emergency fund. Since you have just completed school, and this is your first big job out of college, your income will most likely improve with time. It might make sense to job hop a few times to find the right position. You are much more likely to get a higher salary by changing jobs and employers than you are staying in the same one for your entire career. This generally is true, even if you are promoted at the by the same employer. If you do leave your current job, you would lose what your employer contributed if you are not vested. Even if that happened, you would still keep the portion that you contributed."
},
{
"docid": "385086",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This was a huge question for me when I graduated high school, should I buy a new or a used car? I opted for buying used. I purchased three cars in the span of 5 years the first two were used. First one was $1500, Honda, reliable for one year than problem after problem made it not worth it to keep. Second car was $2800, Subaru, had no problems for 18 months, then problems started around 130k miles, Headgasket $1800 fix, Fixed it and it still burnt oil. I stopped buying old clunkers after that. Finally I bought a Nissan Sentra for $5500, 30,000 miles, private owner. Over 5 years I found that the difference between your \"\"typical\"\" car for $1500 and the \"\"typical\"\" car you can buy for $5500 is actually a pretty big difference. Things to look for: Low mileage, one owner, recent repairs, search google known issues for the make and model based on the mileage of the car your reviewing, receipts, clean interior, buying from a private owner, getting a deal where they throw in winter tires for free so you already have a set are all things to look for. With that said, buying new is expensive for more than just the ticket price of the car. If you take a loan out you will also need to take out full insurance in order for the bank to loan you the car. This adds a LOT to the price of the car monthly. Depending on your views of insurance and how much you're willing to risk, buying your car outright should be a cheaper alternative over all than buying new. Save save save! Its very probably that the hassles of repair and surprise break downs will frustrate you enough to buy new or newer at some point. But like the previous response said, you worked hard to stay out of debt. I'd say save another grand, buy a decent car for $3000 and continue your wise spending habits! Try to sell your cars for more than you bought them for, look for good deals, buy and sell, work your way up to a newer more reliable car. Good luck.\""
},
{
"docid": "97850",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> I don't think you realize how ignorant people can be. Nor how uneducated as to what options they have or more importantly who will pay for those options since they are probably just as broke as they were before the kid. Haha, I'm well aware of how ignorant people can be. I went to a very poor school with bad education where the teachers mostly spent much of their time just trying to corral the class rather than actually teach. The kids still knew that fucking could lead to babies, they just didn't care because they also knew (or at least believed) that they could get welfare. Based on the hostility of your response I'm gonna guess that you probably wont believe me and will assume this is some sort of \"\"alt-right\"\" propaganda, but that doesn't change reality. People can be very very dumb, but they aren't that dumb. > This isn't that point. Right, so where do you draw the line? > Not really a fair comparison, but no I don't think we should let you starve. Idiot or otherwise. Oh, sweet. Well, in that case, if you could send me some money, that would be awesome. I've made some bad decisions in my past and I'm nowhere near the quality of life that I should be. I actually make less the Fran from the article. Ethereum will work for sake of ease. Here's a wallet you can send it to: 0x52f4688802548121e1e404c26ef0e3d8a2667223 > Prove it, name an example country that is now a devastated wasteland for providing decent wages alone. OK, how about the United States. Poor people get a bad education and then many of them can't get a job because it's too expensive to hire them, especially when there are more qualified people available. They could have the opportunity to go work for a company for very cheap as an unskilled helper where they could learn skills on the job that will help them in the future, but it's illegal to pay them less than the minimum wage, so we had to set up an internship exclusion that will allow people to work for free (in exchange for those valuable skills) and is overwhelmingly college students. Now a poor person not only has to excel enough to get into college but they most likely will have to take out crazy loans just to get a foot in the door. \"\"But wait, America hasn't been devastated!\"\" Oh, yes it has. We just keep getting more credit cards to pay off the old ones without actually producing anything, so it doesn't seem like it yet (depending on how you feel about income inequality). Eventually those other countries will realize that they can make products for their own people and they don't actually need us, then you will see the quality of life go up in China (If they don't squander it all lining the pockets of political party members). Without a minimum wage, we would have never lost those jobs in the first place (I know automation is taking over, so manufacturing jobs aren't coming back anyways, but this is what has lead to our crazy trade deficit). > What policies would those be? I'm waiting for that ruined country. You're waiting, huh? Forgive me for not replying to your comment before you posted it. > Real world example or I am going to continue to assume you live in a alt-right fantasy. Ah, there it is. Because I don't think that government programs work as well as a free market system that has vastly improved the quality of life of the average person over the past couple hundred years, I must be alt-right. You realize that basically means white nationalist right? You're essentially calling me a nazi because you disagree with me on economic policy. ...maybe you do realize that. Sorry, you've got me questioning myself on how ignorant people can be.\""
},
{
"docid": "199970",
"title": "",
"text": "Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with)."
},
{
"docid": "391583",
"title": "",
"text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks"
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "422946",
"title": "",
"text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation"
},
{
"docid": "20304",
"title": "",
"text": "To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different."
},
{
"docid": "287876",
"title": "",
"text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year."
},
{
"docid": "149692",
"title": "",
"text": "One thing to consider besides what rules Oregon has, is what rules your old state have. Of course the lack of income tax in Nevada means that most people are trying to convince their new state they are still a resident of Nevada. You are a full-year Oregon resident if you live in Oregon all year. You are also a full-year Oregon resident, even if you live outside Oregon, if all of the following are true: Part-year resident: You are a part-year resident if you moved into or out of Oregon during the tax year. The requirement for financial life means that you should: change all your Nevada banks to Oregon banks; Change all your mail to Oregon; Sell any property or end any leases you have in Nevada. Or course you need to research the rules for in state college tuition, death with dignity if any apply to you. In border areas you must be careful to establish residency for children to attend public schools. Some families try to cheat to get their children into a better school."
},
{
"docid": "493034",
"title": "",
"text": "I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing."
}
] |
4019 | How and Should I Invest (As a college 18 year old with minimal living expenses)? | [
{
"docid": "332749",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd suggest you keep putting money in your savings account and start investing after you land that first big job. As another answer mentioned, unless you're fortunate enough to have all of your tuition and living expenses paid for, an emergency fund is an invaluable tool for a college student. And the bigger the better. Your laptop gets stolen or your car's air conditioner (or heater) dies -- both of these things happened to me in college -- and it would have been a much bigger deal for me if I didn't have some money tucked away."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "425563",
"title": "",
"text": "Something something old people retiring something something ignore the 18-25 205+ unemployment rate something something THE ECONOMY IS RECOVERING BLAH BLAH BLAH *Decreasing participation rates can also be the result of perfectly natural phenomena such as people leaving the labor force so they can go to college/graduate school, raise small children at home or retire. Furman said these phenomena, particularly the boomers’ retirements, are responsible for participation rate’s dip more than anything else.* This article is trying to piss on me and tell me it's raining: first, it was snow/weather hindering the economy. Now, it's all going according to plan since old people are retiring. If this jackass Googled unemployment rates for 18-26 he'd realize how ignorant or stupid he was. Just waitin for that Student Loan bubble to pop to watch this so called recovery come crashing down."
},
{
"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": "407726",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a \"\"safe rate of withdrawal\"\"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.\""
},
{
"docid": "7668",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are living at home as an adult, then you should be paying your fair share and contributing to the household expenses. You said your parents have loans to pay for that was part of your expenses to go to college. As an adult, you should be paying your parents back for the loans they took out on your behalf. You are a responsible person, it sounds like. Therefore, you need to finish restoring your parent's financial position first before moving out or transfer the loans that are actually yours back to you. Your college education and financial duties are your responsibility. Basically, if you are an adult you should move into your own place in a responsible way or stay at home while contributing to your parent's financial household status in a mutually beneficial way of shared responsibility. Remember, healthy adults take care of their lives and share in paying for the expenses required to live."
},
{
"docid": "118800",
"title": "",
"text": "I think we resolved this via comments above. Many finance authors are not fans of target date funds, as they have higher fees than you'd pay constructing the mix yourself, and they can't take into account your own risk tolerance. Not every 24 year old should have the same mix. That said - I suggest you give thought to the pre-tax / post tax (i.e. traditional vs Roth) mix. I recently wrote The 15% solution, which attempts to show how to minimize your lifetime taxes by using the split that's ideal for your situation."
},
{
"docid": "199970",
"title": "",
"text": "Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with)."
},
{
"docid": "143467",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Many years ago I heard a multi-level marketing pitch that pointed out how many doctors don't get out of debt until they are well into their 50's. The selling point was that you can get rich quick, as rich as a doctor, with nothing more then a bit of elbow grease. Of course the pitch failed to mention that most doctors, buy the things doctors buy, when they get that first big job. The big house, expensive cars nerf the income that they receive and they are probably stuck with years of student loan payments. I assume that you are one of the \"\"lucky\"\" ones that have graduated college with a well paying job. By lucky I mean you concentrated on obtaining a skill for which the marketplace has a need. Why not continue to live like a college student for a few more months and pay off all of your student loans ASAP? Get rid of them like you were purging the phone number of that high maintenance girl you dated during a short time of insanity.\""
},
{
"docid": "4044",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc."
},
{
"docid": "403842",
"title": "",
"text": "Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children. She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own. Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense. But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement. She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college. She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement. And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college. You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you. Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts. You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved. She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK. But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses. Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant. She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it. Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income. Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month."
},
{
"docid": "523949",
"title": "",
"text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful."
},
{
"docid": "286656",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm going to answer your questions out of order. Emergency fund: Depending on how conservative you are and how much insurance you have, you may want anywhere from 3-12 months of your expenses on hand. I like to keep 6 months worth liquid in a \"\"high-yield\"\" savings account. For your current expenses that would be $24k, but when this transaction completes, you will have a mortgage payment (which usually includes home-owners insurance and property taxes in addition to your other expenses) so a conservative guess might be an additional $3k/month, or a total of $42k for six months of expenses. So $40-$100k for an emergency fund depending on how conservative you are personally. Down payment: You should pay no less than 20% down ($150k) on a loan that size, particularly since you can afford it. My own philosophy is to pay as much as I can and pay the loan off as soon as possible, but there are valid reasons not to do that. If you can get a higher rate of return from that money invested elsewhere you may wish to keep a mortgage longer and invest the other money elsewhere. Mortgage term: A 15-year loan will generally get you the best interest rate available. If you paid $400k down, financing $350k at a 3.5% rate, your payment would be about $2500 on a 15-year loan. That doesn't include property taxes and home-owners insurance, but without knowing precisely where you live, I have no idea whether those would keep you inside the $3000 of additional monthly home expenses I mentioned above when discussing the emergency fund. That's how I would divide it up. I'd also pay more than the $2500 toward the mortgage if I could afford to, though I've always made that decision on a monthly basis when drawing up the budget for the next month.\""
},
{
"docid": "179702",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An emergency fund is very well defined, both on this site and across the web. An emergency fund is a cash account where you keep money for emergencies so you don't need to take on debt like a loan or credit cards. Car breaks down? emergency fund can help pay that. Lose your job? The emergency fund is there to pay rent and for groceries until you're back up an running. There are several schools of thought on how much money should be in your emergency fund, but it boils down to how high your risk assessment is. Typically, the average is to have 3 months in cash available at all times (like in a savings account). It'd be better to have more, but that's a typical goal. You're also asking about investments in the comments. An emergency fund should be readily available. If you already have $10K in savings, set aside what you would need to cover a few months of bills into a cash-ready savings account, then invest the rest. Investments sometimes take time, or have penalties, if you withdraw them. Additionally, as @JoeTaxpayer so correctly pointed out, getting into the habit of maintaining a separate emergency fund helps protect your other investments from becoming a crutch and instead used to save up for larger things like a house or, especially, retirement. See also: What expenses should be covered by an emergency fund What should I reserve \"\"emergency savings\"\" for? What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into \"\"emergencies\"\" but are not covered by an Emergency Fund? Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?\""
},
{
"docid": "456169",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are referring to college tuition forgiveness, it is not stealing. College shouldn't cost so much in the first place, just look at most developed countries. My god you hyper capitalists are so brainwashed thinking the system you were raised in is the best there is when it reality it is horribly unfair and detrimental to countless lives. It is sickening how someone like you wants to see others suffer because you place yourself above them since you see yourself as being more responsible. Since you paid your loans, no one else's should be forgiven. But your stance would do a 180 if you just graduated school and after countless applications and interviews the only job you are able to get with your degree barely covers your living expenses, let alone loan costs. In that scenario loan forgiveness might sound more appealing."
},
{
"docid": "588244",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Austria - I'm 27 years old and live alone in a 753 square feet apartment. I live 100% on my own salary and have 0€ debt. I pay quite a lot of taxes but I think that it is well worth it, as until now, I received more from the state than I paid back (health care, education, scholarships during education, public transport, low rent,...) Our tax system is far from perfect, but there would be a lot of people who would have no chance to rent a decent apartment, get health care, get their kids to school, or even college without the \"\"socialist redistribution\"\" how you might call it. I do not think that I could change your mind for even a little bit - I just hope somebody who isn't as narrow minded as you might read that and think, hmm maybe this \"\"socialism\"\" isn't as bad as it is displayed. You for example have apparently no idea about the different facets of social economic systems but what am I expecting from a Trump voter (initially meant as a joke, but I actually was right wasn't I? :)\""
},
{
"docid": "97850",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> I don't think you realize how ignorant people can be. Nor how uneducated as to what options they have or more importantly who will pay for those options since they are probably just as broke as they were before the kid. Haha, I'm well aware of how ignorant people can be. I went to a very poor school with bad education where the teachers mostly spent much of their time just trying to corral the class rather than actually teach. The kids still knew that fucking could lead to babies, they just didn't care because they also knew (or at least believed) that they could get welfare. Based on the hostility of your response I'm gonna guess that you probably wont believe me and will assume this is some sort of \"\"alt-right\"\" propaganda, but that doesn't change reality. People can be very very dumb, but they aren't that dumb. > This isn't that point. Right, so where do you draw the line? > Not really a fair comparison, but no I don't think we should let you starve. Idiot or otherwise. Oh, sweet. Well, in that case, if you could send me some money, that would be awesome. I've made some bad decisions in my past and I'm nowhere near the quality of life that I should be. I actually make less the Fran from the article. Ethereum will work for sake of ease. Here's a wallet you can send it to: 0x52f4688802548121e1e404c26ef0e3d8a2667223 > Prove it, name an example country that is now a devastated wasteland for providing decent wages alone. OK, how about the United States. Poor people get a bad education and then many of them can't get a job because it's too expensive to hire them, especially when there are more qualified people available. They could have the opportunity to go work for a company for very cheap as an unskilled helper where they could learn skills on the job that will help them in the future, but it's illegal to pay them less than the minimum wage, so we had to set up an internship exclusion that will allow people to work for free (in exchange for those valuable skills) and is overwhelmingly college students. Now a poor person not only has to excel enough to get into college but they most likely will have to take out crazy loans just to get a foot in the door. \"\"But wait, America hasn't been devastated!\"\" Oh, yes it has. We just keep getting more credit cards to pay off the old ones without actually producing anything, so it doesn't seem like it yet (depending on how you feel about income inequality). Eventually those other countries will realize that they can make products for their own people and they don't actually need us, then you will see the quality of life go up in China (If they don't squander it all lining the pockets of political party members). Without a minimum wage, we would have never lost those jobs in the first place (I know automation is taking over, so manufacturing jobs aren't coming back anyways, but this is what has lead to our crazy trade deficit). > What policies would those be? I'm waiting for that ruined country. You're waiting, huh? Forgive me for not replying to your comment before you posted it. > Real world example or I am going to continue to assume you live in a alt-right fantasy. Ah, there it is. Because I don't think that government programs work as well as a free market system that has vastly improved the quality of life of the average person over the past couple hundred years, I must be alt-right. You realize that basically means white nationalist right? You're essentially calling me a nazi because you disagree with me on economic policy. ...maybe you do realize that. Sorry, you've got me questioning myself on how ignorant people can be.\""
},
{
"docid": "366286",
"title": "",
"text": "It very much depends on whether you want to drive around in an expensive car, or whether you want an expensive car parked on your driveway. And whether you want to buy a new car, or a used one. And whether you know a reliable garage that doesn't rip you off or not. For example, if my wife who drives maybe 5,000 miles a year wanted a 5 series BMW, we could buy a five year old one with 120,000 miles, for about £120 per month purchase price if it lasts 6 years. 11 year old and 150,000 miles should be no problem for that kind of car. So that's quite affordable. For me, driving 25,000 miles a year, the numbers are quite different. Fact is, if you drive around in my wider neighbourhood, you will sometimes see very expensive cars parked in front of very rundown houses. Some people find it more important to drive around in an expensive car than to live in a nice place. That's priorities. Many people can afford expensive cars if they rearrange their priorities (and I'm not saying it's a good thing). PS. If you want to be seen in an expensive car (for example, you take your wife out), you can always rent a car for a day or two."
},
{
"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": "235415",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on earning a great income. However, you have a lot of debt and very high living expenses. This will eat all of your income if you don't get a hold of it now. I have a few recommendations for you. At the beginning of each month, write down your income, and write down all your expenses for the month. Include everything: rent, food, utilities, entertainment, transportation, loan payments, etc. After you've made this plan for the month, don't spend any money that's not in the plan. You are allowed to change the plan, but you can't spend more than your income. Budgeting software, such as YNAB, will make this easier. You are $51,000 in debt. That is a lot. A large portion of your monthly budget is loan payments. I recommend that you knock those out as fast as possible. The interest on these loans makes the debt continue to grow the longer you hold them, which means that if you take your time paying these off, you'll be spending much more than $51k on your debt. Minimize that number and get rid of them as fast as possible. Because you want to get rid of the debt emergency as fast as possible, you should reduce your spending as much as you can and pay as much as you can toward the debt. Pay off that furniture first (the interest rate on that \"\"free money\"\" is going to skyrocket the first time you are late with a payment), then attack the student loans. Stay home and cook your own meals as much as possible. You may want to consider moving someplace cheaper. The rent you are paying is not out of line with your income, but New York is a very expensive place to live in general. Moving might help you reduce your expenses. I hope you realize at this point that it was pretty silly of you to borrow $4k for a new bedroom set while you were $47k in debt. You referred to your low-interest loans as \"\"free money,\"\" but they really aren't. They all need to be paid back. Ask yourself: If you had forced yourself to save up $4k before buying the furniture, would you still have purchased the furniture, or would you have instead bought a used set on Craigslist for $200? This is the reason that furniture stores offer 0% interest loans. They got you to buy something that you couldn't afford. Don't take the bait again. You didn't mention credit cards, so I hope that means that you don't owe any money on credit cards. If you do, then you need to start thinking of that as debt, and add that to your debt emergency. If you do use a credit card, commit to only charging what you already have in the bank and paying off the card in full every month. YNAB can make this easier. $50/hr and $90k per year are fairly close to each other when you factor in vacation and holidays. That is not including other benefits, so any other benefits put the salaried position ahead. You said that you have a few more years on your parents' health coverage, but there is no need to wait until the last minute to get your own coverage. Health insurance is a huge benefit. Also, in general, I would say that salaried positions have better job security. (This is no guarantee, of course. Anyone can get laid off. But, as a contractor, they could tell you not to come in tomorrow, and you'd be done. Salaried employees are usually given notice, severance pay, etc.) if I were you, I would take the salaried position. Investing is important, but so is eliminating this debt emergency. If you take the salaried position, one of your new benefits will be a retirement program. You can take advantage of that, especially if the company is kicking in some money. (This actually is \"\"free money.\"\") But in my opinion, if you treat the debt as an emergency and commit to eliminating it as fast as possible, you should minimize your investing at this point, if it helps you get out of debt faster. After you get out of debt, investing should be one of your major goals. Now, while you are young and have few commitments, is the best time to learn to live on a budget and eliminate your debt. This will set you up for success in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "173878",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\""
}
] |
4019 | How and Should I Invest (As a college 18 year old with minimal living expenses)? | [
{
"docid": "6881",
"title": "",
"text": "While others have made a good case for how you may want to save and spend I just want to take a moment to comment on Acorn and Robinhood. Having never used either of them, I would stick to the seasoned professionals for my long term investment relationship. I'm sure they have the right licensing and proper SIPC coverage etc, but I wouldn't, personally, trust my money to an entity that's almost entirely funded by venture capital. I would stick to a company that exists and is profitable on it's own. All of the major brokerage houses (Vanguard, Schwab, ETrade, Scottrade, etc) in the US give account holders access to a list of ETFs and Mutual Funds with zero load on deposits, no or low minimum account balances, no or low investment minimums, and no commissions. With access to these no cost options, I wouldn't waste time with an entity that exists because of it's investor fund raising abilities."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "391583",
"title": "",
"text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks"
},
{
"docid": "108689",
"title": "",
"text": "I mean, I was a bartender for years in college, and on most Saturdays I'd work from 12PM-4AM in a giant crowd of sweaty, drunk and sticky 18-24 year olds. Friends of mine worked in warehouses, factories, construction, retail, you name it; the thing is, our presence and physical effort was a business necessity. I think the disconnect between our viewpoints is that you see the remote work option as a service solely benefiting the employee, which the employer has to bear at some hardship. My thought is that the option is mutually beneficial, and requiring 100% personal presence in the absence of a business case is an outdated ideology. Consider this: fewer on-site employees means fewer sites -- this translates to millions saved in rent, utilities, insurance, maintenance/administrative staff and IT infrastructure, etc. It also, as the article mentions, *vastly* expands the pool of available talent by removing geographical requirements. Not only that, the option to work from home is in and of itself a feature which lubes the ol' recruiting pipe, as I alluded to earlier. The overarching logic is that there should be a quantifiable advantage attached to a decision like this, and this advantage was, again, as the article mentions, discovered by IBM's own internal research efforts which supported remote work. It doesn't make a lot of sense strategically, but I haven't worked for IBM for years, so I couldn't tell you what internal issues they might be struggling with."
},
{
"docid": "7507",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I lived in Europe for 18 years. I had better care there than in the US for what I paid. Also, under the current system, taxpayers pay more to the government for healthcare than in other countries which have universal healthcare. Additionally, those 46% who don't pay taxes either have shit jobs or can afford a good accountant. A janitor or other \"\"low skill, low level\"\" worker isn't going to pay taxes because he's not making enough. Recent college graduates cannot afford a all around healthcare insurance because they don't have the money. You live in an economic society where every class level is inter-dependent. Paying them shit and telling them the society as a whole shouldn't help them is very selfish and short term sighted.\""
},
{
"docid": "505151",
"title": "",
"text": "Buddy I know how a student investment club works, my school had a great one but thanks for the explanation. Doesn't change the fact that a valuation by some college kids is meaningless, but you wouldn't understand that because you're still a 20 year old kid with no industry experience. I love that you're bragging about your college to someone who has already graduated and made it into the industry, shows you really have no accomplishments to speak of."
},
{
"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": "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": "4044",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc."
},
{
"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": "403842",
"title": "",
"text": "Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children. She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own. Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense. But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement. She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college. She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement. And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college. You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you. Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts. You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved. She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK. But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses. Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant. She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it. Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income. Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month."
},
{
"docid": "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": "348313",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that."
},
{
"docid": "358962",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's a certified accountant who has passed the CPA exam in order to hold the designation. If you don't pay taxes on your income, you'll be completely fucked down the line. If you're self reporting and it's not automatically deducted, definitely speak to a CPA. They may even recommend filing taxes quarterly. The sub you're using is more for high finance and capital markets, I'd suggest /r/personalfinance for your situation. Also, far be it from me to say, because $2k/mo is great for an 18 year old who is presumably in college, but you won't get in trouble as long as you pay taxes. If you mean in a long-term sense of financial stability, yeah that could be bad. $24k is absolutely amazing now and if being hot on instagram can pay for your college, then 100000% do it, that's fucking awesome. Just make sure to get a degree because if you're still only making $24k in your mid 20's, yes you could be in \"\"trouble\"\" as in dire financial straits. That's not much to live off of when you finally have lots of bills to pay.\""
},
{
"docid": "436930",
"title": "",
"text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you."
},
{
"docid": "81016",
"title": "",
"text": "College costs are increasing 8% per year. In 18 years that's 4 times the current costs of college. The [current costs](http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm) of college are $21,000 annually for a public 4 year degree, and $42,000 annually for a private 4 year degree. In 18 years that's $336,000 for a public college bachelor's degree, and $672,000 for a private college bachelor's degree. Per kid. Suddenly $900,000 doesn't seem so big."
},
{
"docid": "149692",
"title": "",
"text": "One thing to consider besides what rules Oregon has, is what rules your old state have. Of course the lack of income tax in Nevada means that most people are trying to convince their new state they are still a resident of Nevada. You are a full-year Oregon resident if you live in Oregon all year. You are also a full-year Oregon resident, even if you live outside Oregon, if all of the following are true: Part-year resident: You are a part-year resident if you moved into or out of Oregon during the tax year. The requirement for financial life means that you should: change all your Nevada banks to Oregon banks; Change all your mail to Oregon; Sell any property or end any leases you have in Nevada. Or course you need to research the rules for in state college tuition, death with dignity if any apply to you. In border areas you must be careful to establish residency for children to attend public schools. Some families try to cheat to get their children into a better school."
},
{
"docid": "453051",
"title": "",
"text": "How much should my down payment be? Ideally 20% of the purchase price because with 20% of the purchase price, you don't have to pay a costly private mortgage insurance (PMI). If you don't have 20% down and come across a good property to purchase, it is still a good idea to go forward with purchasing with what you are comfortable with, because renting long term is generally never a good idea if you want to build wealth and become financially independent. How much should I keep in my emergency fund? People say 3-12 months of living expenses. Keep in mind though, in most cases, if you lose your job, you are entitled to unemployment benefits from the government. How long should my mortgage be? 30 year amortization is the best. You can always opt to pay more each month. But having that leverage with a 30 year loan can allow you to invest your savings in other opportunities, which can yield more than mortgage interest. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "173878",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "118800",
"title": "",
"text": "I think we resolved this via comments above. Many finance authors are not fans of target date funds, as they have higher fees than you'd pay constructing the mix yourself, and they can't take into account your own risk tolerance. Not every 24 year old should have the same mix. That said - I suggest you give thought to the pre-tax / post tax (i.e. traditional vs Roth) mix. I recently wrote The 15% solution, which attempts to show how to minimize your lifetime taxes by using the split that's ideal for your situation."
},
{
"docid": "523949",
"title": "",
"text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful."
}
] |
4019 | How and Should I Invest (As a college 18 year old with minimal living expenses)? | [
{
"docid": "125477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The $1K in funds are by default your emergency fund. If absolutely necessary, emergency funds may need to come from debt, a credit capacity, focus on building credit to leverage lower rates for living expenses eventually needed. Profitable organizations & proprietors, borrow at a lower cost of capital than their return. Join your local credit union, you're welcome to join mine online, the current rates for the first $500 in both your checking and savings is 4.07%, it's currently the fourth largest in the U.S. by assets. You may join as a \"\"family member\"\" to me (Karl Erdmann), not sure what their definition of \"\"family\"\" is, I'd be happy to trace our ancestry if need be or consider other options. Their current incentive program, like many institutions have often, will give you $100 for going through the hassle to join and establish a checking and savings. Some institutions, such as this credit union, have a lower threshold to risk, applicants may be turned down for an account if there is any negative history or a low credit score, shooting for a score of 600 before applying seems safest. The web services, as you mentioned, have significantly improved the layman's ability to cost effectively invest funds and provide liquidity. Robinhood currently seems to be providing the most affordable access to the market. It goes without saying, stay objective with your trust of any platform, as you may have noticed, there is a detailed explanation of how Robinhood makes their money on this stack exchange community, they are largely backed by venture funding, hopefully the organization is able to maintain a low enough overhead to keep the organization sustainable in the long run. The services that power this service such as Plaid, seem promising and underrated, but i digress. The platform gives access for users to learn how investing works, it seems safest to plan a diversified portfolio utilizing a mix of securities,such as low Beta stocks or \"\"blue chip\"\" companies with clear dividend policies. One intriguing feature, if you invest in equities is casting votes on decisions in shareholder meetings. Another popular investment asset class that is less liquid and perhaps something to work toward is real estate. Google the economist \"\"Matthew Rognlie\"\" for his work on income equality on this type of investment. There are many incentives for first time homeowners, saving up for a down payment is the first step. Consider adding to your portfolio a Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) to gain a market position. Another noteworthy approach to this idea is an investment commercial property cooperative organization, currently the first and only one is called NorthEast Investment Cooperative, one stock of class A is $1K. If you are interested and plan to focus on equities, consider dropping into your college's Accounting Capstone course to learn more about the the details of fundamental and technical analysis of an organization. The complexities of investing involve cyclical risk, macro and micro economic factors, understanding financial statements and their notes, cash flow forecasting - discounting, market timing, and a host of other details Wikipedia is much more helpful at detailing. It's safe to assume initial investment decisions by unsophisticated investors are mostly whimsical, and likely will only add up to learning opportunities, however risk is inherit in all things, including sitting on cash that pays a price of inflation. A promising mindset in long term investments are in organizations that focus on conscious business practices. Another way to think of investing is that you are already somewhat of a \"\"sophisticated investor\"\" and could beat the market by what you know given your background, catching wind of certain information first, or acting on a new trends or technology quickly. Move carefully with any perhaps biased \"\"bullish\"\" or \"\"bearish\"\" mindset. Thinking independently is helpful, constantly becoming familiar with different ideas from professions in a diverse set of backgrounds, and simulating decisions in portfolio's. Here is an extremely limited set of authors and outlets that may have ideas worth digging more into, MIT Tech Reviews (Informative), Bloomberg TV (it's free, informative), John Mackey (businessman), Paul Mason (provocative journalist). Google finance is a simple and free go-to application, use the \"\"cost basis\"\" feature for \"\"paper\"\" or real trades, it's easy to import transactions from a .csv. This seems sufficient to start off with. Enjoy the journey, aim for real value with your resources.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "309868",
"title": "",
"text": "One big deciding factor will be what standard of living you want to maintain once you move out. Your parents have had years to get raises, accumulate savings, and establish the standard of living you are used to. Regardless of how much you save up now, you'll still have to be living at or below your means once you move out, that means that all the expenses you currently have covered by your parents have to come out of something you are currently spending elsewhere. If they can come out of whatever extra money you have now, then great. If not, you'll have to re-align your budget to align with your income. In my experience, seeing my friends and I move out, this was the biggest issue. Those who settled into a new standard of living until their wages went up did fine (even the few who moved out at 18 with no savings). Those who couldn't drop the extra expenses, and wanted to continue living at their parent's standard of living either never left home, ended up moving back, or ended up massively in debt. We're only just hitting 30 now, so it didn't take long for things to settle out."
},
{
"docid": "441512",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "140738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\""
},
{
"docid": "179702",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An emergency fund is very well defined, both on this site and across the web. An emergency fund is a cash account where you keep money for emergencies so you don't need to take on debt like a loan or credit cards. Car breaks down? emergency fund can help pay that. Lose your job? The emergency fund is there to pay rent and for groceries until you're back up an running. There are several schools of thought on how much money should be in your emergency fund, but it boils down to how high your risk assessment is. Typically, the average is to have 3 months in cash available at all times (like in a savings account). It'd be better to have more, but that's a typical goal. You're also asking about investments in the comments. An emergency fund should be readily available. If you already have $10K in savings, set aside what you would need to cover a few months of bills into a cash-ready savings account, then invest the rest. Investments sometimes take time, or have penalties, if you withdraw them. Additionally, as @JoeTaxpayer so correctly pointed out, getting into the habit of maintaining a separate emergency fund helps protect your other investments from becoming a crutch and instead used to save up for larger things like a house or, especially, retirement. See also: What expenses should be covered by an emergency fund What should I reserve \"\"emergency savings\"\" for? What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into \"\"emergencies\"\" but are not covered by an Emergency Fund? Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?\""
},
{
"docid": "583040",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is that you can use student loans for living expenses. Joe provides a nice taxonomy of loans. I would just add that some loans are not only guaranteed, but also subsidized. Essentially the Government buys down the rate of the loan. The mechanics are that a financial aid package might consist of grants, work study (job), subsidized, and guaranteed loans. One can turn down one or more of the elements of the package. All will be limited in some form. The work study will have a maximum number of hours and generally has low pay. Many find better deals working in the businesses surrounding the college or starting their own services type business. The grants rarely cover the full cost of tuition and books. The loans will both be limited in amount. It mainly depends on what you qualify for, and generally speaking the lower the income the more aid one qualifies for. Now some students use all their grant, all their loan money and buy things that are not necessary. For example are you going to live in the $450/month dorm, or the new fancy apartments that are running $800/month? Are you going to use the student loan money to buy a car? Will it be a new BMW or a 8 year old Camary? I see this first hand as I live near a large university. The pubs are filled with college students, not working, but drinking and eating every night. Many of them drive very fancy cars. The most onerous example of this is students at the military academies. Attendees have their books and tuition completely paid for. They also receive a stipend, and more money can be earned over the summer. They also all qualify for a 35K student loan in their junior year. Just about every kid, takes this loan. Most of those use the money to buy a car. I know a young lady who did exactly that, and so did many of her friends. So kids with a starting pay of 45K also start life with a 35K. Buying a nice car in the military is especially silly as they cannot drive it while deployed and they are very likely to be deployed. At least, however, they are guaranteed a starting job with a nice starting pay, and upward potential. College kids who behave similarly might not have it as good. Will they even find work? Will the job have the ability to move up? How much security is in the job? One might say that this does not apply to engineers and such, but I am working with a fellow with a computer science degree who cannot find a job and has not worked in the past 6 months. This even though the market is super hot right now for computer engineers. So, in a word, be very careful what you borrow."
},
{
"docid": "118800",
"title": "",
"text": "I think we resolved this via comments above. Many finance authors are not fans of target date funds, as they have higher fees than you'd pay constructing the mix yourself, and they can't take into account your own risk tolerance. Not every 24 year old should have the same mix. That said - I suggest you give thought to the pre-tax / post tax (i.e. traditional vs Roth) mix. I recently wrote The 15% solution, which attempts to show how to minimize your lifetime taxes by using the split that's ideal for your situation."
},
{
"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": "7507",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I lived in Europe for 18 years. I had better care there than in the US for what I paid. Also, under the current system, taxpayers pay more to the government for healthcare than in other countries which have universal healthcare. Additionally, those 46% who don't pay taxes either have shit jobs or can afford a good accountant. A janitor or other \"\"low skill, low level\"\" worker isn't going to pay taxes because he's not making enough. Recent college graduates cannot afford a all around healthcare insurance because they don't have the money. You live in an economic society where every class level is inter-dependent. Paying them shit and telling them the society as a whole shouldn't help them is very selfish and short term sighted.\""
},
{
"docid": "502109",
"title": "",
"text": "Time & money. People have one or the other. Even with a Pell Grant to attend school, it can be very hard to get a job that will accommodate a class schedule and also pay enough for basic living expenses. And many people around here were not encouraged to pursue education, because of the expense. And because, until 10-15 years ago, there were always factories hired and it was expected to start at 18 and stay until retirement. I'm in my 30s and in school now, and it's taking me forever because I've had to change jobs, shuffle classes, and take time off in order to be able to pay bills and pursue my education. If you do too well at work, they don't want to give you the time off to move forward (problem I had at a law office where I was working way more hours than hired for, then told I couldn't cut back to our original agreement when the next semester required more seated classes). If you don't excel, it's not worth their trouble to accommodate you because there are plenty of others begging for a job that can work whenever they're told. And, in towns like this, I suspect part of it is a crabs in the bucket mentality. 40+ year old supervisors with GEDs sometimes don't like it when workers on the bottom rung are getting bachelor's degrees. The same in nursing - some of those LPNs & ADN/RNs get a little touchy when the newer younger ones immediately go to work on their RN. (And EMTs that try to jump straight to Paramedic, or those going for 4 year Paramedicine degrees, are met with outright scorn. Although there are some reasons for that, mainly lack of real world experience)."
},
{
"docid": "253552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, the numbers you give are most probably nowhere near the total expenses you have/need to budget: Maybe you should have a look at the expenses you had over the last years (look at how much money came in and how much went to the savings and compare this expenses to the sum of all the expenses you have on your list of expenses as plausibility check. Just starting on some numbers you give and assuming the house is the main goal. House of 300 - 500 k€, assuming downpayment of 30 - 40 %, i.e. somewhere between 90 and 200 k€. I'll go on calculating with 150 k€ which would be 50 % of 300 k€ or 30 % of 500 k€. You want to be there in 8 - 15 a: this means saving 10 - 19 k€ per year. 19 k€/a is clearly impossible with 20 k€ net wage. 10 k€ with 20 k€ net wage means a savings quote of 50 %, so for each € you spend, one goes towards the house. This is doable in the sense that if you continue with 4 k€/a for rent plus a Harz 4 (= 400 €/month) style of life, that would put you to 9 k€ expenses/a, thus 1 k€ saving for unexpected disaster (I'd actually first get a couple of k€ together for such things, and then go as much as possible towards the house). Still, this is not the life style the rest of your goals sounds like. (You can update this somewhat with the expected income of your girlfriend/wife. But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the \"\"easiest\"\" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes. However, I'd say that 6 months into the first job it may be a bit early to fix such savings rates. Maybe for the beginning a savings account that includes some hassle to get the money out again (set low limit and allow any outgoing money to go only to another account of yours) with an automatic savings deposit every month is a way how to safely determine the savings rate you can manage. Maybe you can use this to first put together your new emergency savings which should be first priority anyways. If you want to cut expenses in order to save, look at the recommendations for people who try to get out of debt: budget your expenses, cook yourself and enjoy this (maybe taking a cooking class together with your girlfriend is a lot of fun, leads to food that may even be more to your taste than restaurant stuff - and is much cheaper), keep book, pay in cash (not by card) and so on. If you're not a DIY person, try whether you could enjoy becoming one - no magic involved there. I guess the most important point is to find out how much you want the house and then how hard you are willing to save. This is something only you and your girlfriend can decide (together!). IMHO you really don't need to invest (unless you drop the house plan), you need to save towards your goals. You may decide to invest a small part of the money while saving in order to learn slowly how that works, but if the house goal is already kind of fixed in time, you don't want to find yourself in the situation that you have to get out of investments at a bad time in order to be able to buy the house. Even if you consider 15 years long enough to do some investing now and then get out some time during the next 15 years, you don't have any money to invest now. Later, the risk posed by the fixed point in time when you need the money is too large: Considering the rather steep saving propositions, the marginal costs of having less money are really large. This means you don't want to go for risky investments => plain old saving is what you need. Consider also that low house prices tend to come during economic crisis (people cannot pay mortgage and have to sell) so within the time window, you want to have your money for anticyclic buying if possible.\""
},
{
"docid": "391583",
"title": "",
"text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks"
},
{
"docid": "493034",
"title": "",
"text": "I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing."
},
{
"docid": "537711",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Before going into specific investments, I think it would be a good idea to assess how \"\"free\"\" is that $5000. How much do you have to rely on it in emergency? You always want to buy low and sell high. However, if you need to make unplanned withdraw from an investment, you risk unfavorable market conditions at the time when you need the money, and lose money that way. One common suggestion is to keep 3-6 months living expense in checking/saving/very, very liquid/short term investments. After that, you can invest the rest in more profitable ventures. Assuming that you are all set in that regard, next consideration is whether you have any goal for the money besides generating the maximum return. Is this for retirement, buying a house/apartment a few year down the road, graduate school, emergency cash store for the time between graduation and getting a job, or traveling a year in Europe after graduation? There are myriad of other possible goals. Knowing that you get a better idea of the time frame involved in the investment, and what you need to do with your money. If this is for retirement, you just need to generate the highest possible return for 40-50 years, while minimize taxes when you have to withdraw that money (there are more nuanced concerns, but large idea-wise that's what you need to do). If you want it for a trip to an exotic location in 2 year, then your primary goal will be to preserve the value of your capital, while assessing whether you need to manage foreign-exchange risk. The time frame also rule in or rule out certain types of investments. If you are planning to use the money to purchase a house in 5 years, IRAs probably would not be what you are looking for. If you are planning to retirement, short term CD would not be the most effective way. After figuring out a bit of what you are trying to do with the money, I think how you want to invest it will be much more clear to you. In case of retirement, people seem to generally recommend no load index funds, and mid-cap growth funds. Nothing is really off the table, since your investment time frame is so long, and you can tolerate risk. You might also be interested to check out https://www.wealthfront.com/ (I have no relation with them). A friend recommended it to me, and I think their pitch make sense. In other cases, it really is case dependent, and there might have more than one solution to any case. There is just one more potential investment venture that people you might not immediately thinking of, and that might be of interest to you. That is to use the $5000 as your own budget to build/maintain connections with people and network. Use it to take professors out to a meal to pick their brain, travel to keep in touch with old friends, network with potential future employers and peers to improve job prospect, or get opportunities to meet interesting people. I hope this helps.\""
},
{
"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": "135781",
"title": "",
"text": "I am 10 years out of college and been debt free for 4. My school would have cost me $180k for 4 years. I was aware of the cost to go to the school I wanted and so I worked in highschool for every possible scholarship available. I then went into a degree program which I knew was a good investment, engineering. I came out of college in the middle of the recession with you guessed it, around $100k in debt. I moved to a place where the cost of living made it so I could get a job and save. I did not live a lavish lifestyle, I invested my money well, and I worked hard. Garbage in, garbage out. Go to a bad school, not worth it. Do not work hard in college, not worth it. Work hard in a major which has no economic value, not worth it. Do not set yourself up for success by working hard in high school, getting things like AP credits and scholarships, not worth it."
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "453051",
"title": "",
"text": "How much should my down payment be? Ideally 20% of the purchase price because with 20% of the purchase price, you don't have to pay a costly private mortgage insurance (PMI). If you don't have 20% down and come across a good property to purchase, it is still a good idea to go forward with purchasing with what you are comfortable with, because renting long term is generally never a good idea if you want to build wealth and become financially independent. How much should I keep in my emergency fund? People say 3-12 months of living expenses. Keep in mind though, in most cases, if you lose your job, you are entitled to unemployment benefits from the government. How long should my mortgage be? 30 year amortization is the best. You can always opt to pay more each month. But having that leverage with a 30 year loan can allow you to invest your savings in other opportunities, which can yield more than mortgage interest. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "520116",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have a mildly exceptional relationship with Social Security. When I was eight years old my father died, leaving nothing but a mountain of debt and an apartment full of trinkets. My mother received Social Security Survivor benefits checks in lieu of his child support payments, which kept me fed and clothed until I graduated high school. She also worked, sometimes multiple jobs, and did what she could to provide health and stability. I consider myself privileged even though we were often financially ... Disadvantaged. When I graduated high school and the checks from Social Security ended, I went on to college, financed a good portion of it, but also received a lot of scholarships and aid along the way. As I near 30, I still wear enough student debt equivalent of a new, mid-class sedan, but I am financially solvent, work a good job, and can afford my own rent, child support, actual child costs, and regular living expenses. While I can still ferret away some of my income into my 401(k), I still need to save for my child's education. I still need to save up for a home. I still have to save up for – and often spend for - a more immediate future. I do not anticipate Social Security being available to in any meaningful sense of the word, when I retire. But I \"\"already got mine\"\" in a sense, and I consider my SSI deductions to be contributions back into the system that kept me fed, kept me healthy, an kept me teachable. I preferred the notion that Social Security didn't become available until someone had exceeded their life expectancy. I preferred the notion that Social Security should never need to be used by anyone. I would much rather the safetynet never be depended upon. But the contributions were much appreciated all the same, and I can now appreciate how those contributions need to be a bit more randomized, more spread across the populace. I am pretty sure this is enough to have people shrieking a me that I'm done kind of socialist. All I know is that I miss that 4% from my paychecks (and I'll miss the full 6% when the \"\"holiday\"\" ends) but that it might help someone thrive, like it did me. My only regret is that the safety net is squandered on old people.\""
},
{
"docid": "585494",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\""
}
] |
4031 | 28 years old and just inherited large amount of money and real estate - unsure what to do with it | [
{
"docid": "115741",
"title": "",
"text": "We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "35394",
"title": "",
"text": "The clusterfuck you mention was a real estate bubble built with the full backing of bankers. The problem is that real estate bubbles are very profitable to selected few, so there is a huge incentive in building them. I do wish some economist would be able to come up with new way of doing business in which we would not always build these bubbles that inevitably will burst. I do feel bad for all the bagholders in spain who were no longer able to sell the real estate they bought for higher amount of money as all the others before them. It is ridicilous that after all the bubbles in history we still do business like this."
},
{
"docid": "43974",
"title": "",
"text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you."
},
{
"docid": "322806",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\""
},
{
"docid": "423541",
"title": "",
"text": "It's an issue of how much of a safety net you want, and part of that is going to be how much of a safety net you have in other areas. You should take into account what regular expenses you have, what emergency expenses you might have, what insurance policies you have, what deductibles those policies have, and what sources of money you have. As Alex B says, a HELOC isn't a guaranteed source of money, but it is one contingency. If you have a large amount of equity and your local real estate market is stable, your bank could cancel your HELOC, but they would have no financial incentive to do so. Other possible safety nets to consider would be friends and family, credit cards, and loans backed by retirement funds. Obviously you shouldn't rely on the last two for everyday expenses, but it's reasonable to consider them as contingencies in true emergencies. Also, if you have a significant net worth, home equity and savings account should not be the only places you're storing your wealth. Look into stocks, bonds, and money market accounts. Your expected returns in the stock market should be higher than the interest you're paying on the HELOC. Stocks are more risky and obviously you shouldn't put all your savings there, but it is one more basket to put your eggs in, and unlike a savings account your money isn't just sitting there."
},
{
"docid": "203889",
"title": "",
"text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year."
},
{
"docid": "314342",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\""
},
{
"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": "561695",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The short answer is that there is no US tax due if all you are doing is moving assets held abroad to the US. Whether you are a \"\"returning\"\" US citizen (or will continue your residence in the Philippines) is not relevant to this. The long answer is that you may be liable for a lot of other fines and taxes if you have not been doing any of several things correctly. As a US citizen, you are required to declare your worldwide income on your US income tax returns. Have you been filing US income tax returns during your time abroad? and have you been declaring the income that you have received from non-US sources each year? This includes wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income from real estate, gambling income, lottery winnings, Nobel prizes, everything. If you have been paying income tax to other countries on this income, then it is generally possible to get a deduction for this tax payment from the income that will be taxed by the US (or a credit for the tax payment against your US Federal income tax liability) depending on the existence of tax treaties or (when the US Senate refuses to approve a tax treaty) a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the US and other countries. In some cases, foreign earned income up to a certain limit is not taxed by the US at all. Even if you have been filing US income tax returns correctly, and can thus account for the $45,000 in your savings account, or you received that money as a gift or inheritance and can account for it on that basis, have you been filing reports with the US Treasury since the year when the total value of all your foreign bank accounts and other financial assets (stocks and bonds etc but not real estate) first exceeded $10,000? In prior years, this was a matter of filling out and submitting Form TD F 90-22.1 but more recently (since 2010?), you need to fill out and submit FinCEN Form 114. Have you been submitting the required documentation all along? Note that there are severe penalties for failure to fine FinCEN Form 114, and these penalties do not get waived by tax treaties. In summary, you might (or you might not) have several other tax or legal issues to worry about than just taxes on the transfer of your money from the Philippines to the US.\""
},
{
"docid": "545996",
"title": "",
"text": "What you are positioning as a loan was not a loan at all. Your father bought something to be delivered in the future. Your aunt does not want to deliver it, so she should buy it back at whatever the current market value is. What is the price that your dad believes her share of the inheritance is currently worth? Is that based on actual appraisals and some sort of objective audit? If so, your aunt doesn't have much of a case. If not, then she could seek an audit to bolster her bargaining position. How much did your aunt benefit from having a place to live for the last 15 years. Was that benefit greater than some larger amount of money at an unknown future date? That's probably why she sold her inheritance 15 years ago. Now that the inheritance looks like it is going to be available soon, she wants to trade back after having enjoyed the use of your father's money. That might be okay, but simply paying back the original sum with inflation, but without interest, doesn't seem fair to your father. She may not be able to afford to give any more than what she is offering, in which case, she might want to consider offering the original sum now and some portion of her inheritance as interest on that original sum. I'm not taking sides in this one. If it were one of my siblings, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and take a smaller amount back if I felt that the lesson was learned (and if I felt that he/she would make wise use of my gift to him/her). I have no idea what your father's current economic situation is, nor am I aware of any other baggage that might influence his feelings about his sister. It's as likely as not that money isn't really what is bothering him, in which case, the amount she repays may have little to do with bridging the divide between them. You might need to ask different questions in the Interpersonal Skills stack if you want to help your father feel better."
},
{
"docid": "73811",
"title": "",
"text": "Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm"
},
{
"docid": "474690",
"title": "",
"text": "I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format."
},
{
"docid": "453610",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think anyone who is seriously contemplating a real estate purchase needs to sit down and read some history -- in particular the accounts of the 1930's and what happened to people who jumped into real estate in the midst of the depression. If you're not aware: by and large, what happened is they lost their asses: the property continues to fall in value, and then they're on the hooked for increasing taxes as local and state governments raise taxes in a desperate attempt to plug budget holes. And, of course, interest rates are headed nowhere but up. That will inversely impact your home's value, given that most people buy homes exactly like you're thinking about them: not how much the home is worth, but rather how much payment can you afford (as rates go up, you can afford less). A contemporary piece which has lots of accounts of this over multiple years is [The Great Depression - A Diary](http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Depression-A-Diary/dp/1586489011). IMHO real estate is to be avoided until well after a bottom has been reached, and that's IMHO still some years away. Someone coming out of college now should ferret away as much money as possible, live as cheaply as possible, and stay far, far away from thoughts of \"\"gee, it sure would be a good idea to go drop half a million dollars on a house when I'm making $70K.\"\" While you're predicting raises and employment, neither is safe to take for granted. Indeed, many folks thought that in the late 00's and got absolutely destroyed financially as a result.\""
},
{
"docid": "466145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a \"\"stepped-up basis\"\" when valuing for estate tax purpose. From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues \"\"the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?\"\" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death.\""
},
{
"docid": "28717",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd be curious to understand where you live, with a condo costing nearly 3X the average home price in the US. That said, if you are hell bent on this, money is loosening up. I am a real estate agent, and part of my distaste for the industry is the fact that it is the near opposite of financial fiduciary. I am responsible to be truthful and act in the best interest of my client. I am specifically not allowed to offer tax or financial advice. A client that told me she had a prequalification, only later shared that she's using a 3% down, FHA mortgage, and from what I see, getting in over her head. In your case, look at the requirements for an FHA loan. I recommend 20% down, and the payment be less than 28% (Principal, interest, property tax) of monthly gross. The FHA allows as little as 3% down, with payment as high as 31%. In your case, $15K is 3%, and, depending on the other expenses for the house, the payment should be manageable. If your 401(k) accounts offer matching, I'd deposit the amount to capture the match, no more, no less. Let me illustrate the power of matching - say the match is on your first $10,000 total, between the 2 of you. $10,000 deposited, is $20,000 in your retirement account, and you are just out of pocket $7500, as that's your net after tax. Now, the $20K in the account allows you to borrow half, $10,000 at a favorable rate for a 10 year payback. So, to your question of raiding your retirement accounts, I'd advise the opposite. A $10K withdrawal will cost $2500 in tax and $1000 penalty. Net $6500. Better to take the IRA, transfer it to the 401(k), and borrow 50%. Your $40K across the accounts will let you borrow $20K and keep the retirement savings going. Last - I respect the answers that say \"\"don't,\"\" they are actually the right answers. Mine only applies if you won't listen to them. In effect, you've asked where to buy rope, and I'm just letting you know where the store is. It's the banks who are happy to sell you the rope to hang yourself.\""
},
{
"docid": "453641",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My revised, bottom-line advice: offer to send a 2nd payment (preferably in the form of money order or cashier's check) for the difference you are agreeing to pay. I cannot imagine any reason why they would object to this - there is no fee to cash a check, there's less risk of error, and less work involved. Alternatively, offer to send a new check only once the other has been returned. Don't issue one more full-amount check while the other is still outstanding. There is a good reason not to accept partial payment by them, which is that accepting a partial payment of a debt comes with a varieties of strings attached depending on the nature of the debt (such as with evictions, court processes may need to be restarted, etc). They likely want to avoid such a situation - but this does not provide any support for why they can't just take a second payment and then cash it all at once as a single, full settlement of the debt. In a perfect world, you could skip all the non-sense by simply having your bank put a stop-payment on the old check before sending a new one. Unfortunately, this might not work with 100% accuracy - but in your case if the \"\"partial payment\"\" is a significant amount of money to you, I'd go ahead and spend the $20-40 to put in the order now as an extra safety on them not doing what they claim, if for some incredibly stupid reason you can't handle this with a 2nd payment instead of one single full one. It turns out banks have lots of surprising and stupid rules, like stop payments on a check expiring in 6 months (and they may even cash stale checks over a year old), no guarantee of a stop being successful, etc. The real rule is: they might cash the check unless you close the account. Sigh - this is one of many reasons I never, ever use checks. I am not aware of any law that requires a check to be physically returned if requested, or proof or destruction provided, or anything like that. It's a large part of the reason why we have the ability to stop payment on a check, and so void it through the bank without having any physical access to the check - but this process is spotty and imperfect, and cannot be relied upon. You can request them to do whatever you like, like void it and send it back, or destroy it, and they can just refuse - or say they'll do it and then just not do it, and you have no real useful recourse. The main goal should be to avoid losing money if someone \"\"accidentally\"\" (or intentionally) cashes both checks. So you can ask, or demand (refuse to pay until they return the check), etc - and they can respond more or less any way they want. As a final piece of future advice, consider no longer using checks for purposes like this. Switch to using something like a cashier's check or money order offered by your bank, which (by their very nature) takes the money out of your account immediately, severs all ongoing connection to your bank account, and is effectively like cash with the added benefit of a paper trail. Keep the stub and and receipt from the cashier's check/money order, in case it is lost or they claim they didn't get the money.\""
},
{
"docid": "74668",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\""
},
{
"docid": "93386",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are looking to transfer money to another person in the US, you can do do with no tax consequence. The current annual gift limit is $14k per year per person, so for example, my wife and I can gift $56k to another couple with no tax and no forms. For larger amounts, there is a lifetime exclusion that taps into your $5M+ estate tax. It requires submitting a form 709, but just paperwork, no tax would be due. This is the simplest way to gift a large sum and not have any convoluted tracking or structured loan with annual forgiveness. One form and done. (If the sum is well over $5M you should consider a professional to guide you, not a Q&A board)"
},
{
"docid": "6334",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no federal inheritance tax. The federal estate tax, currently, exempts the first 5.49 million (US citizen spouses even avoid this). Current law also does a stepped up basis on inherited assets which were bought with after tax money. Example: Dad bought a house years ago for 100k. He dies and leaves it to JJ along with other assets worth $100k (well below the federal estate tax level). JJ sells the house for $400k which was its market value on the day dad died. He gets to keep the entire $400k. Note: Current government wants to eliminate the estate tax AND the stepped up basis. In above case, JJ will now have $300k gains on the house sale and will pay income tax on that! He will end up with much less that $400k."
},
{
"docid": "240232",
"title": "",
"text": "assuming you are in the USA, i would recommend making this a gift. you can gift someone up to 14k$ per year without paying a gift tax. additionally, you can gift someone up to 5430k$, but it is a one-time deal (tied to inheritance tax). you can have a general expectation with the giftee that they will return the money with some interest on some schedule. you can even write that payment schedule down. but for legal, tax and personal relationship reasons, you should both consider all these payments gifts. if you think failure to repay will put a strain on your relationship, then you shouldn't make the loan. if not, then the payments in both directions really are gifts. as a gift, legal documentation can be really minimal. really, only the gifter has to document anything, and that is just on their tax return. even then, i think it is only necessary if you exceed the 14k$ annual gift limit. i would however recommend documenting any interest rates or payment schedules for personal reasons. being a gift, these numbers are just guidelines, but at least you won't find yourself arguing about whether or not the guidelines are being met. depending on how large the amounts involved are, you might want to spread the load over several people to stay under that annual limit. but the limit is per tax year, so you could do half now and half in january."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.