query_id
stringlengths 1
5
| query
stringlengths 16
147
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
1
| negative_passages
listlengths 19
19
|
|---|---|---|---|
5085 | What is vested stock and yearly dividends? | [
{
"docid": "102436",
"title": "",
"text": "Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "91012",
"title": "",
"text": "Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?"
},
{
"docid": "532139",
"title": "",
"text": "The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate."
},
{
"docid": "31037",
"title": "",
"text": "My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year."
},
{
"docid": "170318",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal) There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price. So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life."
},
{
"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": "25671",
"title": "",
"text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy."
},
{
"docid": "354638",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\""
},
{
"docid": "575576",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If you're in a VP+/Director position, you don't get blindsided by this shit no matter what which division you're responsible for ... \"\"Blindsided\"\" is very different from \"\"responsible for.\"\" The Director of HR might know that the CEO is tanking the company, but have no means by which to repair or stop the damage. You're just making an empty connection to justify your overly broad, \"\"tough guy\"\" fantasy. >Okay, let 'em quit. Any stock options they have / other benefits get cashed out and applied to outstanding debts accrued under them before any payout reaches them. 1) Many of those benefits may have already vested, or otherwise vest when you constructively terminate them by withholding their salary. What that means is that they no longer belong to the company, and can't just be seized to play God with. The equivalent would be your employer reaching into your 401k and clawing back vested matching. 2) You're still just engaging in tough-guy fantasy, and ignoring the problem of a rudderless, headless company. Beating you chest and roaring won't stop the employees from being fucked over even harder when inventory stops showing up in the warehouse.\""
},
{
"docid": "542764",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\""
},
{
"docid": "63882",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to. Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense. The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks. Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends. More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy. They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive. Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks). Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper. In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY. MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue \"\"but what happens in the long run?\"\"). The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets.\""
},
{
"docid": "105781",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\""
},
{
"docid": "193396",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is."
},
{
"docid": "139387",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\""
},
{
"docid": "136047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""
},
{
"docid": "199206",
"title": "",
"text": "It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price."
},
{
"docid": "352484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\""
},
{
"docid": "456470",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a dividend? Essentially, for every share of a dividend stock that you own, you are paid a portion of the company’s earnings. You get paid simply for owning the stock! For example, let’s say Company X pays an annualized dividend of 20 cents per share. Most companies pay dividends quarterly (four times a year), meaning at the end of every business quarter, the company will send a check for 1/4 of 20 cents (or 5 cents) for each share you own. This may not seem like a lot, but when you have built your portfolio up to thousands of shares, and use those dividends to buy more stock in the company, you can make a lot of money over the years. The key is to reinvest those dividends! Source: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-investing-101/what-are-dividend-stocks/ What is an ex dividend date Once the company sets the record date, the ex-dividend date is set based on stock exchange rules. The ex-dividend date is usually set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. Source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm That said, as long as you purchased the stock before 6/4/17 you are entitled to the next dividend. If not, you'll get the following one after that."
},
{
"docid": "201127",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "514375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \"\"if\"\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\""
}
] |
5086 | Mortgage loan implications when tearing down existing house and building new one? | [
{
"docid": "96606",
"title": "",
"text": "You would probably be best off checking through your loan documents to see if anything is listed in it in regards to tearing down the existing house. Likely it is not allowed. Thinking about it logically, the house is collateral for the mortgage, and you are wanting to destroy the collateral. I would expect the bank would not be pleased. Semi related question (answers have some good info) - Construction loan for new house replacing existing mortgaged house?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "214878",
"title": "",
"text": "If they really want cash, you notify your bank in advance of the amount and have it put in your account, then you both sign the paperwork at the bank and after everything is signed you have the bank hand them the money. Guarding it after that is entirely their problem. Personally, I would consider this a stupid request and tell them to have their lawyer discuss it with my lawyer in the hope they can be talked out of it. As far as where to get the money: Same as for any purchase, find a bank willing to write a mortgage for you on this new house. What you choose to do about the other two houses is an independent question. You can sell one or both, but that may take money so you probably won't finish doing so before needing to pay for the new house. Of course when they do sell you can use the money toward paying down/paying off the new mortgage."
},
{
"docid": "359969",
"title": "",
"text": "Congrats! Make sure you nail down NOW what happens to the house should you eventually separate. I know lots of unmarried couples who have stayed together for decades and look likely to do so for life; I've also seen some marriages break up that I wouldn't have expected to. Better to have this discussion NOW. Beyond that: Main immediate implications are that you have new costs (taxes, utilities, maintenance) and new tax issues (mortgage interest and property tax deductability) and you're going to have to figure out how to allocate those between you (if there is a between; not sure whether unmarried couples can file jointly these days)."
},
{
"docid": "314163",
"title": "",
"text": "Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden."
},
{
"docid": "64400",
"title": "",
"text": "Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification"
},
{
"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": "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": "79892",
"title": "",
"text": "My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high."
},
{
"docid": "555947",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\""
},
{
"docid": "433171",
"title": "",
"text": "You're halfway done with the debt elimination. Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house. First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without. Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage. This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP. The rates aren't horrible. That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that."
},
{
"docid": "97925",
"title": "",
"text": "Something else to consider, even if your friend is on the up and up and never misses a payment: Until the house is paid off, any time you apply for credit banks will count the mortgage payment on your friends house against your ability to pay all your existing debts in addition to whatever new loan you're applying for. If you're renting a home now, this will likely mean that you'll be unable to buy one until your friends house is paid off."
},
{
"docid": "52837",
"title": "",
"text": "You're the only one that knows what's going on. But in GA they are having problems getting permission to just tear down unmaintained vacant properties. http://www.walb.com/story/15552236/dilapidated-dougherty-co-homes-may-be-demolished http://decatur.11alive.com/news/news/139681-dekalb-county-fix-dilapidated-houses (I had another story in mind but I don't know the right keywords to find it, basically someone abandoned a house years ago and people have been trying to find the owner, because they can't get rid of it and the property values are going down.)"
},
{
"docid": "597376",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "295214",
"title": "",
"text": "Yeah but that wasn't the whole point behind his statement, which was offered in support of the notion that the low-height zoning was the reason for the housing shortage. The reason population density matters is that it's been necessary for Japan to build expensive, high rise housing that's earthquake resistant. Until recently, it would have been unnecessary to zone differently in New Zealand. The implication, I think, is that Japan didn't start building high rise housing until it became more cost prohibitive to build out than up. I don't care about the matter at hand, but I felt a need to referee the fact that the rebuttal did, in fact, negate his point somewhat, and you just happened to pick the part of his point it didn't negate ;-)"
},
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "409573",
"title": "",
"text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either."
},
{
"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": "445887",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\""
},
{
"docid": "278626",
"title": "",
"text": "At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests."
}
] |
5090 | Should I take a student loan to pursue my undergraduate studies in France? | [
{
"docid": "436493",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is \"\"No\"\".\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "586289",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should pay for grad school without taking loans if your circumstances permit. There is the possibility of a tax write off for interest paid on student loans, but it's slightly complicated and it's very much a \"\"give me $10, and I'll give you $5 back\"\" kind of deal. You're better off not borrowing the money to begin with, even though I tend to think that borrowing for things which appreciate-- e.g., a house-- or which can significantly increase your earning capability-- e.g., the right kind of graduate school-- is generally better/wiser/more permissible than borrowing for something which depreciates, like a car. Having no student loan debt after graduation means you have greater freedom than someone who is laboring to pay student loan debt in addition to all of their other bills. My $0.02\""
},
{
"docid": "264400",
"title": "",
"text": "\">> I propose to make the requirements for finish high school and college degrees much much higher, as it was in the past. > Not gonna happen. Totally agree with you! What I was proposing is what SHOULD be done. > waiting for disadvantaged kids to get higher scores will not happen until they get accepted into college. Even then! Almost all disadvantaged kids, smart or not smart, the diploma they get is almost worthless. The diploma will not give them much advantage or improve their situation. The diploma barely even helps very smart kids from rich advantaged homes. Actually, if in the past, no matter who you knew, no matter your family background, a diploma will almost always GUARANTEE a secure and advantaged life. > If you force schools to gain their income from future students earnings they will have high concern for kids that have a good P/E ratio. It will also stop the loan industry from putting these kids into debt. In theory, you are correct. In practice, many many problems to implement. For starters, this makes college a very risky business because it's very hard to predict future income of its students, even the very smart and accomplished students. And I will give you a related example: colleges teach Computer Science (Programming) to many kids today, but the profession is about to die due AI and automation + outsourcing. This was unexpected 1-2 years ago. Barely economists can predict the economy, so you want colleges to predict income based on what is taught? > The downside is that it may turn colleges into trade techs, Actually, colleges are already trade techs because, today, almost all students study just(!) for the hope to get a job. In the past, you studied to become a scholar and wise, and then pick some kind of a job of your interest where being generally smart and knowledgeable is needed. BOTTOM LINE: Since you and I know that nothing will be done, no higher standards and no future-income based tuition, here's what what's happening with my son, which is what happened with me, which is still happening in Germany. No, I am not German, but I come from a German culture - my parents are of German descent, but I was born and raised in Israel. It's called \"\"Master and Apprentice\"\". I have been working since I was 13, with computers, and if you consider my age (55), when I was 13, no PCs with internet, and only punch cards were used to access a computer. My parents did not push me... it was me who felt the need to work, while I was studying (just like my father had that need when he was young). My son, 13 today, but since he was 10, the apple does not fall far from the tree, found work (he's not even allowed to work by law) and is making money. He's right now teaching, administering and designing Minecraft \"\"worlds\"\" and applications. **Hands on experience, especially taught from a Master is better than any Diploma!!!!** He will probably go to some so-so college to get a piece of paper called \"\"Diploma\"\" WHILE he will continue working in whatever he's interested. He will be successful like I am (not trying to brag). I never pushed him, but I explained to you some realities of the world. LAST WORD: actually, most Masters, real Masters, are desperate to teach, for free, their knowledge, vision and know. And the system does not allow them to do that, to protect the colleges and universities. Only in Medicine, it's still happens. Think about it!!!!!\""
},
{
"docid": "182298",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you feel that if you had a gotten an undergraduates degree in economics or finance you may have had an easier time on the CFA initially? You mentioned that you had a degree in computer science and math, so do you think learning most of the concepts for the way economics works on top all of the CFA materials put you at a disadvantage? I only ask because a friend of mine who took (and failed) level 1 mentioned that he did surprisingly worse on basic micro/macro economics than he would have thought, even with his undergrad in finance. Mainly because (he said) it had been so long since he was in an economics class, which is typically a class business students take freshman year. I apologize for the multiple questions on the subject, it's just rare I am able to take time to think and formulate questions I would want to ask a charter holder."
},
{
"docid": "442896",
"title": "",
"text": "A friend tweeted a similar question regarding student loans, and I responded with Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The punchline is that you need to be aware of the 28/36 ratios in a bank qualifying you for your mortgage. Even though you have a house, you may not be aware of this. Simply put, 28% of gross monthly income can be used to qualify for your house burden, loan, taxes, etc. 36% for total debt. So the student loan may fit in that 8% gap, and paying it all off reduces the cash you have without helping you borrow more money. 3-5 years is short term, and to that part of the question, this money should not be invested in anything at risk. A 3 year treasury or CD would be it, in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "219661",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you know how many people end up with an 18-21% rate on their credit card? They started off with low teaser rates. There was an article about it recently on Yahoo. Mainly this comes from a lack of discipline, or an unforeseen emergency. However, lets assume, that you are a bit uncommon and have iron discipline. It comes down to a math question. What is the rate on your student loan? I am going to assume 6%, and lets say that you are now paying interest. So there is 7 months between now an then, you would pay $140 (4000 * .06/12 * 7) in interest if you left it on the student loan. Typically there is not really a free lunch with the zero percent interest rate CC. They often charge a 3% balance transfer fee, so you would pay that on the entire amount, about $120. Is it worth the $20? I would say not. However, those simple calculations are not really correct. Since you would have to pay the CC $588.6/month to take care of this, you have to shrink the balance on the student loan to do a true apples to apples comparison. So doing a little loan amortization, you can retire $4000 on the student loan only paying $583/month, and paying a total of $80.40 in interest. So it would cost you money to do what you are suggesting if there is a 3% transfer fee. Even if there is no transfer fee, you only save about $80 in interest. If it was me, I would direct my energy in other areas, like trying to bring in more money to make this student loan go away ASAP. Oh and GO STEELERS!"
},
{
"docid": "124479",
"title": "",
"text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans."
},
{
"docid": "119117",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is a student loan a type of loan or just a generic name used to refer to a loan for someone who is going back to school? A student loan from the federal government is a specific type of loan used for education purposes (i.e. attending college). They have guidelines associated with them that are very flexible as compared to a student loan from a private bank. If a student loan is a different type of loan, does it only cover the costs of going to the school? Every student at a university has a \"\"budget\"\" or the \"\"cost of attendance\"\". That includes direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are ones billed directly to you (i.e. tuition, room and board - should you choose to live on campus, and associated fees). Indirect costs are such things like books, travel expenses (if you live out of state), and personal things. Direct costs are controlled by the school. Indirect costs are estimated. The school will usually conduct market research to determine the costs for indirect items. Some students go above that, and some go below. For example, transportation is an indirect cost. A school could set that at $500. There are students who will be above that, and some below that. If you choose not to live on campus, then rent and food will become an indirect cost. Student loans can cover up to 100% of your budget (direct and indirect added together). If your total budget is $60,000 (tuition, room and board, transportation, books, supplies, etc.) Then you are able to borrow up to that amount ($60,000). However, because your budget is both direct and indirect costs, you will only be billed for your direct costs (tuition, etc.). So if your direct costs equal $50,000 and your student loan was certified for $60,000, then you will get that $10,000 back in the form of a refund from the school. That does not mean you don't have to pay it back - you still do. But that money is meant for indirect costs (i.e. books, rent - if you're not staying on campus, etc.). If your school is on semesters vs quarters, then that amount is divided between the terms. Summer term is not factored in, that's another process. Also with student loans, there are origination costs - the money associated with processing a loan. A good rule of thumb is to never borrow more than you need. Source: I used to work in financial aid at my college.\""
},
{
"docid": "12988",
"title": "",
"text": "Edit: lazy math The answer to this question depends on two things: How bad will it be if you cannot repay this loan in the way you expected? - How likely are you to actually get into a PhD program with a stipend? Is there a possibility that you will not get a stipend? What is the penalty for failure to repay? Will you have to support yourself after university? How much money could you expect to earn if you found a job after your undergraduate degree? How much could taking this loan improve your finances/life? - Could you get your degree at anther institution without going into debt? Would your career be better if you went to Ecole Polytechnique? I would take the loan if:"
},
{
"docid": "575421",
"title": "",
"text": "I would consult a tax professional for specific help. On my own research, I believe that you could. I know that when I made payments when I was in school for my undergraduate, I made payments on the interest. I believe that I was even told by my financial aid office that I could deduct the interest that I paid. I made not much money so I wasn't anywhere close to the MAGI >75k, but I believe you still could. Not only that but one other thing to consider is that if you have an unsubisidized loan, the interest still accrues when you are in school. In that case, it might be better to make at least some payments. It would save you from the total loan amount ballooning so much while you are in school."
},
{
"docid": "518829",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Disclaimer: I work in trading as an analyst for a hedge fund, not ibanking. Take everything with a grain of salt. >Pretty much, I'm a student at UCSB who has recently become interested in pursuing I-Banking. Why? >As it looks, I currently don't have an internship lined up for this summer Get something. Or do something interesting like surf the barrier reef for the summer. I was working with the principals recently on hiring (i.e. had to screen resumes / do the first round interviews) for an entry-level position and recent grads without any experience were an automatic no. People with interesting experience (or cool thesis) sometimes got an interview if only because it's interesting and novel. Other places may disagree or have different philosophies but I can't imagine this is totally dissimilar. >If I can't find an analyst position in the next few weeks, I plan on working my ass off over summer reading and researching what it means to be an I-Banker. Idk, there's really not that much to it. \"\"Can you use Excel extremely well\"\"; \"\"do you function well with little sleep\"\"; \"\"do you understand basic financial modeling\"\". An ibanking analyst at a money center bank isn't doing hugely sophisticated things. >I'm aware that none of these schools are target schools, but I have heard good things about west coast banking at USC and east coast/south for vandy. Reasonable. Either one will would probably allow you to get your foot in the door. >I love UCSB, I love the people, the atmosphere, my fraternity, and the weather. Why leave? I don't see the upside to doing so. >However, I'm getting to a point in my life where the decisions I make are becoming much more important, and I am willing to sacrifice what I have developed at UCSB for more opportunities to break into Ibanking/PE/hedge funds Why? What's the reason? Money? There's nothing wrong with wanting money, however please understand your motivation for wanting to go into ibanking and make sure it'll make you happy. I work in the hedge fund world (analyst). It's interesting and I personally enjoy it a great deal. That said the majority of the traders I know are constantly talking about quitting and doing something meaningful with life. Do what you *enjoy* and if that happens to be finance, go for it. Your biggest challenge in ibanking is getting in the room. I think networking helps for that, I imagine the internet is full of resources on that. And then surviving once you do - that part always seems the hardest. There's a lot of ex-ibankers out there. My girlfriend was an investment banker for a spell. I asked her and she said \"\"do interesting things, get good grades, work hard, and learn Excel\"\". She said that for one of her interviews they pretty much talked about food the whole time and partying in France. So go figure.\""
},
{
"docid": "562847",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The comments section to Dilip's reply is overflowing. First - the OP (Graphth) is correct in that credit scoring has become a game. A series of data points that predicts default probability, but of course, offers little chance to explain why you applied for 3 loans (all refinancing to save money on home or rentals) got new credit cards (to get better rewards) and have your average time with accounts drop like a rock (well, I canceled the old cards). The data doesn't dig that deep. To discuss the \"\"Spend More With Plastic?\"\" phenomenon - I have no skin in the game, I don't sell credit card services. So if the answer is yes, you spend more with cards, I'll accept that. Here's my issue - The studies are all contrived. Give college students $10 cash and $10 gift cards and send them into the cafeteria. Cute, but it produces no meaningful data. I can tell you that when I give my 13yr old $20 cash, it gets spent very wisely. A $20 Starbucks card, and she's treating friends and family to lattes. No study needed, the result is immediate and obvious. Any study worth looking at would first separate the population into two groups, those who pay in full each month and those who carry a balance. Then these two groups would need to be subdivided to study their behavior if they went all cash. Not a simply survey, and not cheap to get a study of the number of people you need for meaningful data. I've read quotes where The David claimed that card users spend 10% more than cash users. While I accept that Graphth's concern is valid, that he may spend more with cards than cash, there is no study (that I can find) which correlates to a percentage result as all studies appear to be contrived with small amounts to spend. As far as playing the game goes - I can charge gas, my cable bill, and a few other things whose dollar amounts can't change regardless. (Unless you're convinced I'll gas up and go joy-riding) Last - I'd love to see any link in the comments to a meaningful study. Quotes where conclusions are stated but no data or methodology don't add much to the discussion. Edit - Do You Spend More with Cash or Credit? is an article by a fellow Personal Finance Blogger. His conclusion is subjective of course, but along the same path that I'm on with this analysis.\""
},
{
"docid": "435082",
"title": "",
"text": "You cannot become a CFA charterholder without job experience (I think it is 5 years in a finance-related job). But typically, for students or recent graduates, passing the Level 1 exam has a lot of value as it signals your interest in the field and shows that you have the work ethic to go through the 1000+ pages of material. The incremental value of Level 2 and Level 3 is not as much, but they still add value. I did a career change into finance and I planned to take the Level 1, but I found that I didn't have the time to apply for jobs and study at the same time. I ended up getting a job without taking the exam. I did end up taking the exam last weekend after I started working at my new job."
},
{
"docid": "586626",
"title": "",
"text": "You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "500180",
"title": "",
"text": ">Thank you very much for your reply. > >I'll look more into the CFA but I have a question - does it require an undergrad degree in finance/accounting to become licensed if you pass? Obviously that's an area that I need to do more research but a great place to start based on your suggestions. No, you do not need anything but to be in your fourth year or graduate from any undergraduate program. It's a three test process (Level 1/2/3) and it will take you years to become a chartholder. People recommend 4-6 months of study for level one, it is quite difficult. More information on r/CFA, or CFAI's website. >If I take it in December I'll be 5 months from my masters. In that case it makes more sense to complete the masters because quitting that close to the end really throws a lot away. I know counseling isn't specific to the field, but people skills seem to be the cornerstone of every career. I don't know enough about counselling to really advise you, nor do I really know about the hiring process or decision criteria. You can ask on wallstreetoasis (WSO) > I'm more interested in a career that is not as emotionally taxing Uhhh, I don't know about that, but I really don't know anything about counselling. Can you tell me what a day in the life of a counsellor is like and how you see the career and challenges faced in the industry or by people in your current/future positions?"
},
{
"docid": "560928",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school."
},
{
"docid": "353162",
"title": "",
"text": "The numbers you provided would just barely make it (depending on taxes where you are), and I'd say there's lots of room to cut expenses back if need be. The big assumption is that your fiancé will have a steady income of over $3k/mo take-home. My advice would be to keep your job until you see that as a reality. That said, getting an education is, imho, the single most important thing you can do. In the long run, it's worth eating ramen noodles and rice and beans for a couple years. It's even worth going into debt. (It took me nearly 10 years to pay off my student loans. No regrets here.) While working your way through school is noble and it's great if you can do it, being able to focus on your studies is what will make it worthwhile. It sounds to me like you're on the right track."
},
{
"docid": "116167",
"title": "",
"text": "Yeah, I am Canadian and my professor is a big believer in Warren Buffet style valuation. Both of these probably play into his love for the CBV as well as having a couple former students who have it. I think I will start with the CFA and get the CBV if I think it is necessary. I have already started to study for the CFA, I downloaded the schweser notes. Hoping to take it in June after I graduate."
},
{
"docid": "581204",
"title": "",
"text": "The question regarding your snapshot is fine, but the real question is what are you doing to improve your situation? As John offered, one bit of guidance suggests you have a full year's gross earnings as a saving target. In my opinion, that's on the low side, and 2X should be the goal by 35. I suggest you look back, and see if you can account for every dollar for the prior 6-12 months. This exercise isn't for the purpose of criticizing your restaurant spending, or cost of clothes, but to just bring it to light. Often, there's some low hanging fruit in this type of budgeting exercise, spending that you didn't realize was so high. I'd also look carefully at your debt. What rate is the mortgage and the student loans? By understanding the loans' rates, terms, and tax status (e.g. whether any is a deduction) you can best choose the way to pay it off. If the rates are low enough you might consider funding your 401(k) accounts a bit more and slow down the loan payments. It seems that in your 30's you have a negative net worth, but your true asset is your education and future earning potential. From a high level view, you make $180K. Taking $50K off the top (which after taxes gives you $30K) to pay your student loan, you are still earning $130K, putting you at or near top 10% of families in this country. This should be enough to afford that mortgage, and still live a nice life. In the end there are three paths, earn more (why does hubby earn half what you do, in the same field?), spend less, or reallocate current budget by changing how you are handling that debt."
},
{
"docid": "354621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How many of you enjoyed your first job out of your undergraduate studies? Have any of you switched careers before completing a \"\"standard\"\" year because you didn't like it? I'm doing some really fun stuff in my current internship, there is a lot that I enjoy, and I'm a lot luckier than most - but I can't see myself doing this job for more than a year (if I'm even given an offer).\""
}
] |
5090 | Should I take a student loan to pursue my undergraduate studies in France? | [
{
"docid": "12988",
"title": "",
"text": "Edit: lazy math The answer to this question depends on two things: How bad will it be if you cannot repay this loan in the way you expected? - How likely are you to actually get into a PhD program with a stipend? Is there a possibility that you will not get a stipend? What is the penalty for failure to repay? Will you have to support yourself after university? How much money could you expect to earn if you found a job after your undergraduate degree? How much could taking this loan improve your finances/life? - Could you get your degree at anther institution without going into debt? Would your career be better if you went to Ecole Polytechnique? I would take the loan if:"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "21626",
"title": "",
"text": "I personally do not buy any those so-call forecasts - look no further than the economic forecasts by those experts with PhDs over the last decade or so. Truth is there are too many factors that affects the tuition fees that far down the road (think inflation, cost of living, the method for which the education is being delivered, anticipated salary for the teachers, the ratio of schools and students, your children's ability to obtain scholarship money, and etc). Put in what you can afford for RESP - I put in $2000 annually per child to take maximum advantage of the 20% government matching. And be prepare to augment that with additional fund in 18 years. I am prepared to take on significant loans if my children both decided and qualified for graduated studies in specialized fields in a prestige universities - I have had met people with graduate degrees from Harvard and Cambridge and the obscure sum they (or their parents) paid on tuition are about as good investment as I have ever seen. Education is one of the best gifts any parent could give to their child."
},
{
"docid": "219673",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course you can. My assumption is you are/will be in UK. I am a student from outside the UK and I am about to start studying at a UK university/college/school. How do I choose which bank is best for me? You should be able to open a ‘basic bank account’ with a number of different banks. A ‘basic bank account’ provides easy access to banking facilities for adults in the UK. Additionally, some banks offer a bank account tailored specifically for your needs as an international student. There is a table on pages 6 & 7 of this leaflet that has a list of basic accounts and other accounts that may be suitable along with brief descriptions of some of their features. Most banks don’t ask you to pay in any money to open a basic account. You should look around to see which bank and account suit you best and then visit the local branch of the bank you have chosen. You may also be able to get other types of account, as detailed in the next section. Please speak to a bank Go through the source I have linked. It is a bit old, but has relevant information for you. SOURCE"
},
{
"docid": "390550",
"title": "",
"text": "Just my opinion..in Canada uni and college are different ..college is much more practical and short term for example I can go learn HVaC (trade)in 6-8 months and have a job within a year or so) in college. I don't think there are courses more than 3 years in college (unless it's linked to university, but that college and uni usually have an agreement of some sort ) ..it is also difficult to transfer credits from college to university (rather complex system up here) I went to college for nursing 3 years ..my loans are under 18k total I'm set to make 50k minimum ..college here is worth it to me. Now they've made it free to go to college if you make under 45k a year in the province of Ontario so now it's def worth it lol 😂 But I have many friends who are in the states, and they have terrible majors like global studies and some other nonsense I've never heard before, its clear that there is no job description for that and the institution is swindling students ..seems that you have to be in the right field of study to be successful ..just my two cents ..depends on the country as well"
},
{
"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": "103093",
"title": "",
"text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase."
},
{
"docid": "414534",
"title": "",
"text": "Like all other loan-vs-savings questions, it depends on the terms of the loan. If you have a choice, the usual answer is to pay off the loan with the worst terms (which usually means the highest interest rate) first, and only start with savings when you've paid off all the high-interest loans entirely. If your student loan is on US terms, then pay it off as soon as you can, unless you have commercial debt (credit-card or unsecured personal loan), which you should pay off first, or unless you have or are realistically likely to get eligibility for a forgiveness program. But it does depends on the terms of the debt, which in turn depend on the country you studied in; on UK terms it's a very bad idea to pay off a student loan any faster than you have to. Interest is restricted to the rate of inflation, so good investments probably beat the interest rate of the student loan; the required repayments vary with your income, so savings are more useful than debt repayment if you encounter income difficulties (e.g unemployment) in the future, and finally the debt is automatically forgiven after 30 years, so you may never have to pay it all back anyway - so why pay it off voluntarily if it would get forgiven eventually anyway?"
},
{
"docid": "541386",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/business/dealbook/student-loan-debt-collection.html) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Other large student lenders, like Sallie Mae, also pursue delinquent borrowers in court, but National Collegiate stands apart for its size and aggressiveness, borrowers&#039; lawyers say. > National Collegiate&#039;s beneficial owner, Mr. Uderitz, hired a contractor in 2015 to audit the servicing company that bills National Collegiate&#039;s borrowers each month and is supposed to maintain custody of many loan documents critical for collection cases. > A random sample of nearly 400 National Collegiate loans found not a single one had assignment paperwork documenting the chain of ownership, according to a report they had prepared. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o3vdd/student_loan_forgiveness_due_to_lost_paperwork/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~169942 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*: **Borrower**^#1 **loan**^#2 **National**^#3 **case**^#4 **Collegiate**^#5\""
},
{
"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": "205772",
"title": "",
"text": "The main problem is that everyone graduates from high-school, almost everyone gets accepted to college and almost nobody who put minimum efforts fails college classes. I know that! I was an adjunct professor and was told I can't fail my students except in extreme cases. In the past, to graduate from high school was a hard accomplishment. Getting accepted to college was a hard accomplishment. Surviving the first year in college was an accomplishment and getting a degree was an accomplishment. Those accomplishments in the past gave you excellent benefits! Benefits of assured respected jobs, income, security, and being the exception. An example: in the past, to be a teller in the bank, you did not have to finish high-school, just be good in basic math. Today: a teller in the bank, one of the lowest paying jobs you can find, requires a Bachelor degree. Does the bachelor degree worth it? **Basically, higher education became an industry, that accept as many people as possible, charge them as much as it can, give degrees to undeserving people, and those degrees are almost worthless. You can't do much with a Bachelor degree!** The solution is to make the standards for high school and college much higher. Everything will fall into place then. Fewer students who are actually interested in studies and are qualified for their studies will mean better teaching, lower costs, and much better benefits for those deserve those benefits. Chances of this happening? Big big zero. Actually, the chances of even lower standards for colleges and schools are 100%. So, for my son, I explained to him to not invest much in an excellent and expensive college for [worthless] degrees. Instead, while he studies, work in the area he is interested in and learn from the masters he works with. My son is 13, but since being 11, he works (yes, he makes money) with some computer system he's interested in. Personally, I worked since I was 13, study and worked all the time, got my Bachelor and Masters, and I am doing extremely well. I get paid for what I know, which Zero of it came from my studies and money I spent in those studies."
},
{
"docid": "562847",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The comments section to Dilip's reply is overflowing. First - the OP (Graphth) is correct in that credit scoring has become a game. A series of data points that predicts default probability, but of course, offers little chance to explain why you applied for 3 loans (all refinancing to save money on home or rentals) got new credit cards (to get better rewards) and have your average time with accounts drop like a rock (well, I canceled the old cards). The data doesn't dig that deep. To discuss the \"\"Spend More With Plastic?\"\" phenomenon - I have no skin in the game, I don't sell credit card services. So if the answer is yes, you spend more with cards, I'll accept that. Here's my issue - The studies are all contrived. Give college students $10 cash and $10 gift cards and send them into the cafeteria. Cute, but it produces no meaningful data. I can tell you that when I give my 13yr old $20 cash, it gets spent very wisely. A $20 Starbucks card, and she's treating friends and family to lattes. No study needed, the result is immediate and obvious. Any study worth looking at would first separate the population into two groups, those who pay in full each month and those who carry a balance. Then these two groups would need to be subdivided to study their behavior if they went all cash. Not a simply survey, and not cheap to get a study of the number of people you need for meaningful data. I've read quotes where The David claimed that card users spend 10% more than cash users. While I accept that Graphth's concern is valid, that he may spend more with cards than cash, there is no study (that I can find) which correlates to a percentage result as all studies appear to be contrived with small amounts to spend. As far as playing the game goes - I can charge gas, my cable bill, and a few other things whose dollar amounts can't change regardless. (Unless you're convinced I'll gas up and go joy-riding) Last - I'd love to see any link in the comments to a meaningful study. Quotes where conclusions are stated but no data or methodology don't add much to the discussion. Edit - Do You Spend More with Cash or Credit? is an article by a fellow Personal Finance Blogger. His conclusion is subjective of course, but along the same path that I'm on with this analysis.\""
},
{
"docid": "167213",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't understand the calculations in the comments by the OP. He says My monthly savings after mandatory expense is around USD 2000. This includes rent, expenses, emergency fund savings, and the monthly required payment of my auto loan. (emphasis added) He has $2000 USD left over after monthly expenses (which includes rent, food, utilities etc, contribution towards emergency funds, and the required monthly payment on the auto loan). He claims that by applying the $2000 USD per month towards reducing the debt, it would take him 30-36 months to be debt-free. But is it not the case that applying the $2000 to the student loan of $18K+ (while continuing to make the auto loan payments) will pay the student loan off in less than 10 months? If no payments are made on that $18K+ student loan, the accrued interest of about $2K in 10 months (this is (18.25*13.7%*)(10/12) for a total of $20K+). In actuality, with the loan being paid down, the interest will be much less. Once the student loan is paid off, the extra $2000 can go towards what is left of the $10K auto loan each month and pay it off in another 4 or 5 months or so. So we are talking of 15 months max instead of 30-36 months. Of course, as Carlos Briebiescas points out, the car is more valuable as an asset than can be sold in case of job loss creating a need for cash etc, and so paying it off first might be better, but that is a different calculation."
},
{
"docid": "358242",
"title": "",
"text": "I mean, yeah, that is true. Your point is a valid concern and I do think it could potentially reduce the number of EU students studying in the U.K. It is something the British need to keep an eye on over the next decade. But think about it ... to go to the US to study as a European, you need a student visa as well and our influx of foreign students coming to study in America continues to grow. You need a student visa to go pretty much anywhere in the world besides the 28 EU countries. I think the main factor is having a strong university network as a nation and the U.K. definitely has that. They had it before the EU was even created. As long as the U.K. has that strong education foundation, people will continue to study there. Not to mention, students go for the added benefit of improving their English skills. https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/12/record-number-of-international-students-studying-in-u-s/%3famp=1"
},
{
"docid": "188373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Like everybody else I'm picking up on the school loans - you're mother isn't exactly earning a massive amount of money given her cost of living, why is she taking out student loans that benefit you and your sister? I'm not trying to be offensive but it's fairly obvious that she can't afford it. As a first step I think you should at least take over paying your own student loans (you sound like you're out of college already and if you have $8k to \"\"lend\"\" to your mother you probably have enough money to pay the student loans that benefited you, after all) or as someone else also recommended, assume your loans. As to your sister, maybe it's time for her to get (another) job to pay for the tuition so her mother doesn't have to go further into debt. Again, I'm not trying to be mean here but your mother is digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole because of the tuition. Something's gotta give, and delivering pizza or getting a paper round is a small sacrifice here. Next, the car - unless she has a managed to work herself out of some of this mess, I would consider getting a much cheaper car instead. This is provided that she isn't upside down on the loan. Personally I wouldn't trade in a vehicle with an upside down loan, if anything that's another bad financial decision. Assuming that she isn't upside down on the loan and has some equity in the car, I would seriously consider selling the car and using the equity to buy something small and cheap. That should also hopefully reduce the cost of gas and maybe insurance somewhat. I think these points are probably the quickest steps that can be taken towards recovering this situation. You already mentioned the longer term plans like downsizing the apartment, but TBH I'm not sure that this is really necessary. The big elephant in the room are the college costs and removing those from the equation would give her a serious amount of breathing room.\""
},
{
"docid": "141320",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis."
},
{
"docid": "264400",
"title": "",
"text": "\">> I propose to make the requirements for finish high school and college degrees much much higher, as it was in the past. > Not gonna happen. Totally agree with you! What I was proposing is what SHOULD be done. > waiting for disadvantaged kids to get higher scores will not happen until they get accepted into college. Even then! Almost all disadvantaged kids, smart or not smart, the diploma they get is almost worthless. The diploma will not give them much advantage or improve their situation. The diploma barely even helps very smart kids from rich advantaged homes. Actually, if in the past, no matter who you knew, no matter your family background, a diploma will almost always GUARANTEE a secure and advantaged life. > If you force schools to gain their income from future students earnings they will have high concern for kids that have a good P/E ratio. It will also stop the loan industry from putting these kids into debt. In theory, you are correct. In practice, many many problems to implement. For starters, this makes college a very risky business because it's very hard to predict future income of its students, even the very smart and accomplished students. And I will give you a related example: colleges teach Computer Science (Programming) to many kids today, but the profession is about to die due AI and automation + outsourcing. This was unexpected 1-2 years ago. Barely economists can predict the economy, so you want colleges to predict income based on what is taught? > The downside is that it may turn colleges into trade techs, Actually, colleges are already trade techs because, today, almost all students study just(!) for the hope to get a job. In the past, you studied to become a scholar and wise, and then pick some kind of a job of your interest where being generally smart and knowledgeable is needed. BOTTOM LINE: Since you and I know that nothing will be done, no higher standards and no future-income based tuition, here's what what's happening with my son, which is what happened with me, which is still happening in Germany. No, I am not German, but I come from a German culture - my parents are of German descent, but I was born and raised in Israel. It's called \"\"Master and Apprentice\"\". I have been working since I was 13, with computers, and if you consider my age (55), when I was 13, no PCs with internet, and only punch cards were used to access a computer. My parents did not push me... it was me who felt the need to work, while I was studying (just like my father had that need when he was young). My son, 13 today, but since he was 10, the apple does not fall far from the tree, found work (he's not even allowed to work by law) and is making money. He's right now teaching, administering and designing Minecraft \"\"worlds\"\" and applications. **Hands on experience, especially taught from a Master is better than any Diploma!!!!** He will probably go to some so-so college to get a piece of paper called \"\"Diploma\"\" WHILE he will continue working in whatever he's interested. He will be successful like I am (not trying to brag). I never pushed him, but I explained to you some realities of the world. LAST WORD: actually, most Masters, real Masters, are desperate to teach, for free, their knowledge, vision and know. And the system does not allow them to do that, to protect the colleges and universities. Only in Medicine, it's still happens. Think about it!!!!!\""
},
{
"docid": "162523",
"title": "",
"text": "I have taken the free Kiyosaki evening course, and it does give some good information. It is an upsell to the $500 weekend course, which I also took. That course taught me enough about real-estate investing to get started. I have not yet had the need to pursue his other, more expensive courses. Read his books, take the $500 course, read other people's books on real estate investing, talk to other like-minded individuals, and gain some experience. I understand real estate better than I understand paper assets because I spent more time studying real estate. If you want to invest in real estate, study it first. If you want to invest in paper assets, study those first."
},
{
"docid": "27484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\""
},
{
"docid": "97734",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree. The CFA is nice for students who have the time to take the exam, because it could be a year or two before the start working, so it is a reasonable resume padder (especially if your major is engineer, science, or math and you want to do finance). If you are trying to do a career change, it is important to know the material, because if you don't, then you can't do the job even if someone gives it to you. But passing the test isn't as important as actually applying to the jobs and networking. I switched from engineering to finance (buyside equity analyst). Originally I planned to take the CFA exams to help me with my transition. But their new rule required a valid passport, and it takes a while to get one, so I missed the deadline for last December's exam. That turned out to be a good thing because I just started networking, cold calling/emailing, applying to jobs, etc and I got my current job. If I had actually decided to take the CFA, I would have wasted all my time preparing for the exam instead of trying to get the job. Potential employers know if you are good or not after talking to you for 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with being able to memorize a set of formulas, some the last name of some economists and their theories, some oscure accounting differences between GAAP and IFRS, etc. For me it was the fact that I invest my own money and that I am able to explain my own investments very intelligently (aka it needs to be a lot better than what you see on /r/investing). If you know nothing about finance, studying the CFA material and then taking the exam is a good thing. You are going to be studying the material anyways if you are serious about a career change, so might as well take the exam afterwards and get a resume padder. I did end up taking the level 1 this month because my new employer paid for it. I don't think it adds any value once your foot is already in the door, especially since it takes 5 years of experience to get the charter (after that amount of time, it's all about job experience)."
},
{
"docid": "413955",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind."
}
] |
5125 | Regarding Australian CBS takeover of TEN | [
{
"docid": "318728",
"title": "",
"text": "\"they are purchasing the company\"\" is this correct? Yes this is correct. If I purchase a \"\"company\"\" here in Australia, I also purchase its assets and liabilities Yes that is correct. How can it be NIL? How can it be legal? The value of shares [or shareholders] is Assets - liabilities. Generally a healthy company has Assets that are greater than its liabilities and hence the company has value and shareholders have value of the shares. In case of TEN; the company has more liabilities; even after all assets are sold off; there is not enough money left out to pay all the creditors. Hence the company is in Administration. i.e. it is now being managed by Regulated Australian authority. The job of the administrator is to find out suitable buyers so that most of the creditors are paid off and if there is surplus pay off the shareholder or arrive at a suitable deal. In case of TEN; the liabilities are so large that no one is ready to buy the company and the deal of CBS will also mean nothing gets paid to existing shareholders as the value is negative [as the company is separate legal entity, they can't recover the negative from shareholders]. Even the current creditors may not be paid in full and may get a pro-rated due and may lose some money.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "239167",
"title": "",
"text": "Break the transactions into parts. Go to your bank or credit union and get a loan commitment. When applying for loan get the maximum amount they will let you borrow assuming that you will no longer own the first car. Take the car to a dealer and get a written estimate for selling the car. Pick one that gives you an estimate that is good for a week or ten days. You now know a data point for the trade-in value. Finally go to the dealer where you will buy the replacement car. Negotiate the price, tell them you don't need financing and you will not be trading in the car. Get all you can regarding rebates and other special incentives. Once you have a solid in writing commitment, then ask about financing and trade in. If they beat the numbers you have regarding interest rate and trade-in value accept those parts of the deal. But don't let them change anything else. If you keep the bank financing the dealer will usually give you a couple of days to get a check. If you decide to ell the car to the first dealer do so as soon as you pick up the replacement car. If you try to start with the dealer you are buying the car from they will keep adjusting the rate, length of loan, trade-in value, and price until you have no idea if you are getting a good deal."
},
{
"docid": "173262",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are comparing two things that are not comparable. The \"\"market size\"\" would be the total annual revenue in one market, in this year. The \"\"market caps\"\" of a company is the number of shares multiplied by the share price. This should be equal to the total profit that the company is going to make through its life time, taking into account that you would get interest on an investment, so future profits have to be counted less accordingly. So if the \"\"market size\"\" is ten million dollars, and a company has four million revenue in that market with one million profit, and everyone thinks that company will continue making that profit for the next fifty years, then surely one million a year for the next 50 years is worth more than ten million. That's if the market stands still. If the \"\"market size\"\" is ten million, and we expect that market size to double for the next three years, then the market size is still ten million, but a company having a 40% share of a market growing at that speed is going to be worth a lot more!\""
},
{
"docid": "571246",
"title": "",
"text": "To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians."
},
{
"docid": "409699",
"title": "",
"text": "Maximilian Haidbauer is an award-winning Media Executive, Producer & Director with over 150 hours of Branded Content, Social Impact Documentaries and Television programs to his credit. Shows produced by Maximilian aired on networks and platforms such as: CBS, Red Bull TV, Amazon, itunes, Hulu, ETV (Africa), Red Bull Media House, Outside Television (USA), Servus TV (Austria), SSF (Swiss), Pro7 (Germany)…Visit website for more information!"
},
{
"docid": "221038",
"title": "",
"text": "Between this and the FBI raid of the Yeshiva school getting a $1.2 million dollar grant for computers (When their children are forbidden from using them). Their incessant drive trying to get homeowner's in Tom River to close all cash so they can move in, their disgusting attitude towards women (not being able to sit next to a woman on El Al airlines), their pedophilic elders who molest children in bathhouses in Brooklyn, the East Ramapo school district takeover and their isolationism towards members of other community that they live beside, these types disgust me. It's not anti-Semitic, it's fuck these people in particular. Extremism of any religion is terrible."
},
{
"docid": "15650",
"title": "",
"text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved."
},
{
"docid": "423525",
"title": "",
"text": "Superior rating system is not why Google dropped Yelp. They dropped Yelp because, among other reasons, Yelp turned down a takeover bid from Google. Consider that in the new Maps app on Apple's iOS 6, Apple is pulling in ratings from Yelp. Would Apple choose to get review data from an inferior source? Unlikely."
},
{
"docid": "396633",
"title": "",
"text": "The company may have put a trading halt due to many reasons, most of the time it is because the company is about to release some news to the market. To stop speculation driving the price up or down, it puts a halt on trading until it can get all the information together and release it to the market. This could be news about an earnings update, a purchase of other businesses, a merger with another business, or a takeover bid, just to name a few."
},
{
"docid": "86852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, Australian bureocrats made it impossible to register a small business without making the person's home address, full name, date of birth and other personal information available to the whole world. They tell us the same old story about preventing crime, money laundering and terrorism, but in fact it is just suffocating small business in favour of capitalistic behemoths. With so many weirdos and identity thieves out there, many people running a small business from home feel unsafe publishing all their personal details. I use a short form of my first name and real surname for my business, and reguraly have problems cashing in cheques written to this variation of my name. Even though I've had my account with this bank for decades and the name is obviously mine, just a pet or diminitive form of my first name (e.g. Becky instead of Rebecca). This creates a lot of inconvenience to ask every customer to write the cheque to my full name, or make the cheque \"\"bearer\"\" (or not to cross \"\"or bearer\"\" if it is printed on the cheque already). It is very sad that there is protection for individual privacy in Australia, unless you can afford to have a business address. But even in this case, your name, date of birth and other personal information will be pusblished in the business register and the access to this information will be sold to all sorts of dubious enterprises like credit report companies, debt collectors, market researchers, etc. It seems like Australian system is not interested in people being independent, safe, self-sufficient and working for themselves. Everyone has to be under constant surveliance.\""
},
{
"docid": "56147",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Week after week, I make remarks regarding expenses within retirement accounts. A 401(k) with a 1% or greater fee is criminal, in my opinion. Whole life insurance usually starts with fees north of 2%, and I've seen as high as 3.5% per year. Compare that to my own 401(k) with charges .02% for its S&P fund. When pressed to say something nice about whole life insurance, I offer \"\"whole life has sent tens of thousands of children to college, the children of the people selling it.\"\" A good friend would never suggest whole life, a great friend will physically restrain you from buying such a product.\""
},
{
"docid": "489352",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\""
},
{
"docid": "19789",
"title": "",
"text": "Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office."
},
{
"docid": "297495",
"title": "",
"text": "Most reflationary policies are talking about stopping, so hopefully in 2018 the CBs will stopping buying so much. BOJ is rethinking their policy of buying treasuries when our US yields start to rise (to shrink them and protect their currency). So hopefully once we get past global QE, things can get back to a more “normal” status. As far as advice on finding value...err...good luck? [Growth of Monetary Base and M2 chart in article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part) Also look at how the money multiplier is shrinking."
},
{
"docid": "305111",
"title": "",
"text": "I mean, the ultimate goal of the takeover would be removing a specific account, so if twitter shuts down all accounts, the it's a win (granted the investors don't care about monetary losses, which of course they do). Still, activist investors can get into proxy fights for board seats and even strategy with just 2% of a company. If there were enough people invested only in removing Trump, the trade of unhappy shareholders vs Trump seems easy to make."
},
{
"docid": "19556",
"title": "",
"text": "Disvestment activities tend to be misguided. In doing so, a fund/individual is not really taking money away from the companies in question (assuming they're not doing secondary offerings), and 'disvestment' doesn't imply that you're going to be using their products less (or boycotting them entirely), which would actually impact their financials. And in a convoluted way, disvestment could actually trigger further consolidation among coal companies, since it makes them cheaper and thus easier takeover targets. Funds that have the ability to do so should make 2nd & 3rd round VC investments in clean energy startups. It's been awfully difficult for clean energy startups to raise money lately, and funding those startups would have a lot more impact."
},
{
"docid": "130757",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's what JP Morgan is going to do: it's going to say that it was forced into a forced shotgun marriage with Bear by the Feds, and that it was not given time to do the due dilligence that generally comes before takeovers of this nature. Case closed."
},
{
"docid": "281568",
"title": "",
"text": "It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer - each."
},
{
"docid": "21130",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm having a difficult time understanding how Chevron is avoiding taxes through party related loans. From my understanding, Chevron is providing loans to its Australian subsidiary at interest rates higher than market benchmarks. Does this shift profits from Australia to the U.S. and how does it help Chevron avoid taxes even though the corporate tax rate is higher in the U.S. than in Australia? Wouln't they want to be taxed at the the lower tax rate in Australia than in the U.S.? The more description the better, thanks! Edit: I think I understand that Chevron is giving out large loans with high interest rates to its subsidiary in Australia and I think the Australian subsidiary is converting its revenues to pay back the loan thus looking like profit in the corporation's books in Delaware. How is the money to pay back interest being raised if not from revenue? And how is that revenue not being taxed?"
},
{
"docid": "85749",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd like to see a credible source for \"\"the highest\"\", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income. This is generating a great deal of debt. Keynes(?) said that \"\"if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.\"\" Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest. Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall. Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks). So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board. A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction. Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power. If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies.\""
}
] |
5134 | Why does Yahoo Finance's data for a Vanguard fund's dividend per share not match the info from Vanguard? | [
{
"docid": "158523",
"title": "",
"text": "In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "479461",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a \"\"split\"\"). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or \"\"approximations\"\". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices. If Facebook were removed from the S&P 500 overnight tonight, the fund would sell its shares at the price buyers are bidding the next market day at 09:30. This could be significantly different than the price today, which the index records. Securities are purchased in blocks. Rather than buying 0.000478 shares of General Motors each time someone invests a dollar, they wait for a few people and then buy a full share or a round lot. Securities are substituted. With lots of analysis, it may be determined that two stocks move in tandem. The fund may purchase two shares of General Motors rather than one of General Motors and Ford. This halves transaction costs. Debt is used. As part of substitution, equities may be replaced by options. Option pricing shows that ownership of options is equivalent to holding an amount of debt. Other forms of leverage may also be employed to achieve desired market exposure. See also: beta. Dividends are bundled. VFINX, the largest S&P 500 tracking fund, pays dividends quarterly rather than immediately as earned. The dividend money which is not paid to you is either deployed to buy other securities or put into a sinking fund for payment. There are many reasons why you can't get the actual performance quoted in an index. And for other more exotic indices, like VIX the volatility index, even more so. The best you can do is work with someone that has a good reputation and measure their performance.\""
},
{
"docid": "564876",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\""
},
{
"docid": "69771",
"title": "",
"text": "Just look at the published annualized returns, which are inclusive of distributions and fees. From the Vanguard website: Average annual returns include changes in share price and reinvestment of dividends and capital gains."
},
{
"docid": "402523",
"title": "",
"text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan."
},
{
"docid": "530938",
"title": "",
"text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund."
},
{
"docid": "328699",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\""
},
{
"docid": "559884",
"title": "",
"text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE."
},
{
"docid": "433210",
"title": "",
"text": "\"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a \"\"D\"\", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also.\""
},
{
"docid": "370281",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\""
},
{
"docid": "100485",
"title": "",
"text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits."
},
{
"docid": "482871",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "367960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\""
},
{
"docid": "345954",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around"
},
{
"docid": "183898",
"title": "",
"text": "It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt."
},
{
"docid": "83079",
"title": "",
"text": "Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios."
},
{
"docid": "317666",
"title": "",
"text": "tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent: Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right. By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality: As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data."
},
{
"docid": "356202",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One other thing to consider, particularly with Vanguard, is the total dollar amount available. Vanguard has \"\"Admiralty\"\" shares of funds which offer lower expense ratios, around 15-20% lower, but require a fairly large investment in each fund (often 10k) to earn the discounted rate. It is a tradeoff between slightly lower expense ratios and possibly a somewhat less diverse holding if you are relatively early in your savings and only have say 20-30k (which would mean 2 or 3 Admiralty share funds only).\""
},
{
"docid": "454610",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "408103",
"title": "",
"text": "Interesting to me. Index funds are known for hurting active management. Fund flows have been toward index funds, not active funds. But apparently S&P and MSCI are making hundreds of millions just by licensing out the names of their most popular funds. Vanguard also had a sweetheart deal at one time: > Index funds weren't always a big business, and S&P didn't always know just how valuable the indexes it owned really were. Before the first ETF ever hit the market, S&P agreed to a perpetual license with Vanguard that entitled the index owner to a maximum annual fee of $50,000 from Vanguard's premier index mutual fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund. >As Vanguard popularized the index fund, S&P began to realize just how much it had left on the table. By 2001, the Vanguard fund had $90 billion in assets > To this day, Vanguard's premier S&P 500 index fund is reportedly operating under its perpetual license, paying just $50,000 per year to S&P Global, but subsequent funds based on S&P's indexes are likely paying full freight. For S&P, it was a very costly lesson to learn."
}
] |
5134 | Why does Yahoo Finance's data for a Vanguard fund's dividend per share not match the info from Vanguard? | [
{
"docid": "206727",
"title": "",
"text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "491472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Determine which fund company issues the fund. In this case, a search reveals the fund name to be Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund from Vanguard Funds. Locate information for the fund on the fund company's web site. Here is the overview page for VDIGX. In the fund information, look for information about distributions. In the case of VDIGX, the fourth tab to the right of \"\"Overview\"\" is \"\"Distributions\"\". See here. At the top: Distributions for this fund are scheduled Semi-Annually The actual distribution history should give you some clues as to when. Failing that, ask your broker or the fund company directly. On \"\"distribution\"\" vs. \"\"dividend\"\": When a mutual fund spins off periodic cash, it is generally not called a \"\"dividend\"\", but rather a \"\"distribution\"\". The terminology is different because a distribution can be made up of more than one kind of payout. Dividends are just one kind. Capital gains, interest, and return of capital are other kinds of cash that can be distributed. While cash is cash, the nature of each varies for tax purposes and so they are classified differently.\""
},
{
"docid": "56894",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor."
},
{
"docid": "473150",
"title": "",
"text": "Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units."
},
{
"docid": "546379",
"title": "",
"text": "Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader."
},
{
"docid": "191006",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "345954",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around"
},
{
"docid": "433210",
"title": "",
"text": "\"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a \"\"D\"\", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also.\""
},
{
"docid": "219477",
"title": "",
"text": "Where you can put the money really depends on your risk tolerance. You could take $50k and put it into a good share class municipal and government bond fund that would likely be tax exempt. In a few years span I don't think you're likely to lose much in a tax-managed bond fund but it's certainly possible! Here is a link for Vanguard tax-exempt bond funds by state of residency: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-mutual-funds-list?assetclass=bond&taxeff=xmpt These funds have returns well exceeding CD's or standard savings accounts. Risk of loss is real, but returns are possible."
},
{
"docid": "162916",
"title": "",
"text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too."
},
{
"docid": "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": "408103",
"title": "",
"text": "Interesting to me. Index funds are known for hurting active management. Fund flows have been toward index funds, not active funds. But apparently S&P and MSCI are making hundreds of millions just by licensing out the names of their most popular funds. Vanguard also had a sweetheart deal at one time: > Index funds weren't always a big business, and S&P didn't always know just how valuable the indexes it owned really were. Before the first ETF ever hit the market, S&P agreed to a perpetual license with Vanguard that entitled the index owner to a maximum annual fee of $50,000 from Vanguard's premier index mutual fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund. >As Vanguard popularized the index fund, S&P began to realize just how much it had left on the table. By 2001, the Vanguard fund had $90 billion in assets > To this day, Vanguard's premier S&P 500 index fund is reportedly operating under its perpetual license, paying just $50,000 per year to S&P Global, but subsequent funds based on S&P's indexes are likely paying full freight. For S&P, it was a very costly lesson to learn."
},
{
"docid": "215540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \"\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\"\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \"\"badges\"\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\""
},
{
"docid": "562776",
"title": "",
"text": "I would at least encrypt the part of the drive you keep forms like that, but not to protect myself from the odd villain who works for the IRS. Your broker does report your capital gains to the IRS, whether in sales or dividends. I received a bill last month from the IRS for dividends I forgot to report on my 2013 return. The bill contained a partial duplicate of my 1099-DIV form from the brokerage, and included account numbers and SSN. Therefore it's safe to say IRS employees don't need to hack your laptop in order to get that info. :) As for minimum information, it depends on your broker. Call them and ask; they'll tell you everything you need to know. Vanguard, for example, has some security questions, among other things."
},
{
"docid": "555237",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\""
},
{
"docid": "159471",
"title": "",
"text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess."
},
{
"docid": "138383",
"title": "",
"text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general."
},
{
"docid": "328477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\""
},
{
"docid": "520963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "530938",
"title": "",
"text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund."
}
] |
5150 | What credit card information are offline US merchants allowed to collect for purposes other than the transaction? | [
{
"docid": "229937",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Zip code, as well as billing address, is used in conjunction with the Address Verification Service (AVS). AVS is a web (or phone) service that actually verifies the address with the billing address on file with the issuing bank. It does not use the credit card stripe. You can see more information from various sources such as bank merchant help pages like Bank of America's. As far as what is stored on the stripe, it varies some by bank (as there are some \"\"optional\"\" areas). The standards are discussed here. Fields include your account number, name, the expiration date, some card-specific stuff, and then the discretionary section. I would not expect much in terms of address type information there. So - the answer to your question is that they can't really take much more than your name and CC #, unless you give it to them. If you give a false zip code, you may have your purchase rejected. They certainly do keep track of the credit card number, and I would suppose that is the most valuable piece to them; they can see you make purchases across time and know for a fact that it's the same exact person (since it's the same card). Additionally, zip codes for AVS from pay-at-the-pump are supposedly not generally used for marketing (see this article for example). That is probably not true at at-the-register (in-person) collections, most of those aren't for AVS anyway. Even California permits the pay-at-the-pump zip verification as long as it's only used for that (same article). I would assume any information given, though, is collected for marketing purposes.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "488127",
"title": "",
"text": "I would like to offer a different perspective here. The standard fee for a credit card transaction is typically on the order of 30 cents + 2.5% of the amount (the actual numbers vary, but this is the ballpark). This makes small charges frequently unprofitable for small merchants. Because of this they will often have minimum purchase requirements for credit/debit card payments. The situation changes for large retailers (think Wal-mart, Target, Safeway, Home Depot). I cannot find a citation for this right now, but large retailers are able to negotiate volume discounts from credit card companies (a guy who used to work in finance at Home Depot told me this once). Their transaction fees are MUCH lower than 30 cents + 2.5%. But you get the same reward points on your credit card/debit card regardless of where you swipe it. So my personal philosophy is: large chain - swipe away without guilt for any amount. Small merchant - use cash unless it's hundreds of dollars (and then they may give you a cash discount in that case). And make sure to carry enough cash for such situations. When I was a student, that was about $20 (enough for coffee or lunch at a small place)."
},
{
"docid": "183839",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Until the CARD act, credit card rules required that merchants had no minimum purchase requirement to use a card. New rules permit a minimum but it must be clearly posted. Update - Stores can now refuse small credit card charges is an excellent article which clarifies the rules. It appears that these rules apply to credit, not debit cards. So to be clear - the minimum do not apply to the OP as he referenced using a debit card. \"\"Superiority\"\"? Hm. I'd be a bit embarrassed to charge such small amounts. Although when cash in my wallet is very low, I may have little choice. Note, and disclaimer, I am 48, 30 years ago when I started using cards, there were no POS machines. Credit card transactions had a big device that got a card imprint and the merchant looked up to see if your card was stolen in a big book they got weekly/monthly. Times have changed, and debit cards may be faster, especially if with cash you give the cashier $5.37 for a $2.37 transaction, but the guy entered $5 already. This often takes a manager to clear up.\""
},
{
"docid": "503836",
"title": "",
"text": "Virtual Credit Card: It there something like virtual credit card? Yes there is. We have banks in India HDFC and Kotak bank that allows you to generate a virtual credit card which could be used for payments on websites. These cards are one time use cards and will expire as soon as you use it once. The mail objective behind such virtual card service is to protect the actually card information to be shared on websites. Take a look: Its call Netsafe and remember HDFC is a very reputed bank in India Moving further about the company Entropay. Take a look at the website. Most of the information you need to know about the company starts from the website data: Lets take a look at the contact us page: Any company that deals in financial services business has to be registered under financial services authority of the country they are doing business in. This company is based in Malta and should definitely be registered with Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). The company claims that they are registered with FSA under license registration number 540990. Sounds great everything is perfect but just to make sure I thought of taking a look at the MFSA website on the activity of the company. Here's a link: http://www.mfsa.com.mt/ Under License Holder Tried searching for the company Ixaris Systems Ltd. and here is what I found: There was no record of the company on the MFSA database. I even tried not searching and looking into the complete database but no such company on the list. By the way look I found Western Union there: What I mean to say here is only one thing. Any company that deals in financial transactions need to be registered with the local financial services of the country they have their physical address in. If suppose western union is an american company with physical existence in 100 countries they not only have to be registered with Financial Services Authority in US but also in every other countries they have their physical address in. I know many of you will still argue that it has a valid verisign logo which means it's a company with physical address and its been verified. But please remember its very easy to fool those verisign guys coz almost every verification is done online. Also the verisign information of this company shows its a company registered in UK not Malta. Just to be very sure again I also checked the FSA website of UK. There is no such company under FSA regulations even in UK. I would want to give you the answer to your question very boldly but I had a bad experience today on this same website so I would rather allow you make the decision wether its a legit company or a SCAM."
},
{
"docid": "469383",
"title": "",
"text": "So, what's the point of a charge-back, if they simply take the word of the merchant? tl;dr: They don't. As both a merchant and a consumer I have been on both ends of credit card chargebacks, and have received what I consider to be mostly fair outcomes in all cases. Here are some examples: Takeaways from this: I strongly urge all consumers who are considering doing a chargeback to try to work with the merchant first, and use the CC dispute as a last resort. In general, you can think of the credit card dispute department like a judge. They hear the arguments presented by both sides, and consider them to the best of their ability. They don't always get it right, but they make their best attempt given the limited information they are provided."
},
{
"docid": "378485",
"title": "",
"text": "The fee to withdraw cash from an ATM using your credit card (as opposed to your debit card) is akin to the merchant fees paid by any business that accepts your credit card as payment. These fees range from around 2.75% of the transaction to upwards of 5%, and are charged to the merchant. The fees are split among the various vendors that provide the infrastructure to conduct the credit card transaction — resulting in the merchant receiving the money and the charge on your credit account. These fees are used by each vendor to cover their costs and, ultimately, generate a profit. (Note: Most vendors in the value chain DO NOT receive any revenue from any interest you may pay on your outstanding balance.) Therefore, when you withdraw cash from an ATM, you are paying the merchant fees instead of whatever merchant you are purchasing goods/services from with the cash withdrawn."
},
{
"docid": "140500",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit card companies organize types of businesses into different categories. (They charge different types of businesses different fees.) When a business first sets up their credit card processing merchant account, they need to specify the category. Here is a list of categories that Visa uses. Grocery stores and supermarkets are category number 5411. Other types of businesses, such as the examples you provided in your question, have a different category number. American Express simply looks at the merchant category code for each of your transactions and only gives you rewards for the ones in the grocery store category. It's all automated. They likely don't have a list of every grocery store in the US, and even if they did, they would probably not provide it to the public, for proprietary reasons. If you are in doubt about whether or not a particular store is in the grocery category, you'll just have to charge it to your card and see what happens. Often, the category of transaction will be shown for each transaction on your credit card's website."
},
{
"docid": "573216",
"title": "",
"text": "\"According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act: any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report [...] to a person which it has reason to believe [...] intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer See p12 (section 604). The usual interpretation of this that I've heard is that a debt collection agency that owns or has been assigned a debt can make hard pulls on your credit report without your consent. This link seems to support that (and references the same part of the act, among others): According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, [...], any business can access your credit history without your permission provided the business has a valid \"\"permissible purpose.\"\" The FCRA notes that one such permissible purpose is to review your credit information in connection with the collection of a debt. Thus, if you owe money to a debt collector, the debt collector has the legal right to pull and review your credit report. If they haven't been assigned the debt or own it outright, I believe you have a legal right to dispute it. Consult a lawyer if this is actually a situation you face. Once use for this is if the debt collection agency has trouble locating you; since your credit report normally contains current and past addresses, this is one way to locate you.\""
},
{
"docid": "453299",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For the first part of your question; Refer to related question Why do some online stores not ask for the 3-digit code on the back of my credit card? The other case of Airport ticket machines, requires the physical presence of card. The assumption is that if you had the card before and after the transaction, it was you who used it for transaction. As the amounts are small its really easy by anyone [merchant, Banks] to write this off. The only way to misuse would be if you lost the card and someone used it. Also these ticket machines would have built in feature where by you cannot buy more than \"\"X\"\" tickets for the day. Ensuring max loss on a stolen card is limited to a small amount.\""
},
{
"docid": "226590",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, you did. To give an example of the contract terms that allow this, the [Capital One credit card agreement](https://www.capitalone.com/media/doc/credit-cards/Credit-Card-Agreement-for-Consumer-Cards-in-Capital-One-N.A.pdf) states: > Credit Reports > > We may report information about your Account to credit bureaus and others. Late payments, missed payments, or other defaults on your Account may be reflected in your credit report. Information we provide may appear on your and the Authorized Users’ credit reports. > > If you believe that we have reported inaccurate information about your Account to a credit bureau or other consumer reporting agency, notify us in writing at PO Box 30281, Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0281. When you write, tell us the specific information that you believe is incorrect and why you believe it is incorrect. > > We may obtain and use credit, income and other information about you from credit bureaus and others as the law allows."
},
{
"docid": "553418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk. The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process): 1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (\"\"a terminal\"\") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a \"\"Payment Gateway\"\". 3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (\"\"Chase\"\", \"\"US Bank\"\", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, \"\"Can card # 555.. charge $10?\"\" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor. 5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on. 7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees. The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on. 8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with. That's what you're paying for.\""
},
{
"docid": "599799",
"title": "",
"text": "Honestly, if you're going to restrict the online payment on your card over this, you may as well just restrict it permanently. Because this is definitely not the only time anyone has had an opportunity to retrieve the information on your card. There isn't really that much information on there - anyone taking more than a cursory look could in theory remember it and use it. We're talking waiters and checkout chicks, anytime you've given your card to anyone really. Banks know this. Credit card numbers are not really secure. They factor this in. And they have software for fraud detection - looking at large or unusual transactions and transactions in foreign countries etc. Of course it's not fool proof, but the best thing you can do isn't to cripple your card, but just be a little bit more diligent about checking your statements, making sure the transactions make sense. Some banks also allow you to set up an alert system so anytime any transactions occur you are notified immediately."
},
{
"docid": "35530",
"title": "",
"text": "Because your friend isn't going to like the ~2% charge they have to pay to the credit card company on the $10,000 purchase. Credit card companies make money off of transactions. The cardholder normally doesn't pay any transaction fees (and in fact can make a profit via rewards), but the merchant has to pay a certain amount of money to the credit card company for the transaction. In this case, the apartment owners ate the charge, likely because it was easier for them to send a check than to refund the cost of the fee through the credit card company. If you started doing this a lot to take advantage of this, I would imagine they would get smart and refuse your business (it'll be pretty obvious what you're doing if you're not signing any leases)."
},
{
"docid": "439779",
"title": "",
"text": "I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission."
},
{
"docid": "55522",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit card merchant fees are $0.15 - $0.40 per transaction plus 1.5-4% of the amount charged. Card issuers are competing to get to be the card in your pocket that you use on a daily basis. If you were a card issuer, wouldn't you like to get 1.5-4% of every transaction I make for the rest of my life? As a side note, ever since I became a business owner and saw how much we are all paying for credit card merchant fees, I've patronized a lot more cash-only businesses. The best ones pass the savings directly on to the consumer."
},
{
"docid": "5191",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit card fraud protection (by law), credit card cash back programs (provided by most CC issuers), and debit card fees (commonly imposed by the merchant). The crux is that with CC transactions, a small percentage is remitted to the issuing bank. Since the banks are already making money hand over fist on CC's, they incentivize people to use them. CC security is also lax because the merchant is responsible for fraudulent charges instead of the bank. If the merchant fails to check a signature, they are held liable for all charges if the card holder reports a fraudulent transaction."
},
{
"docid": "410728",
"title": "",
"text": "If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate. It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance. I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees. You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever). Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards."
},
{
"docid": "277964",
"title": "",
"text": "Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security. Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises. You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard. Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase? So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions. PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement)."
},
{
"docid": "444640",
"title": "",
"text": "It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem."
},
{
"docid": "342966",
"title": "",
"text": "Why wouldn't they be? The reader is free after rebate, and sold in Walgreen's/Riteaid, etc. The site shows a fee of 2.75% which is comparable to what merchants are charged for card use. Not sure what other uses you're thinking of, but it's probably a good thing to have for a yard sale. From an article in Fast Company Magazine: The result was the Square reader, which launched a year ago and which allows just about anyone to set themselves up to take credit card payments. Even you. Planning a garage sale and want to enable people to pay for your gerbil cages and Shawn Cassidy LPs by credit card? No problem. Square's for you."
}
] |
5155 | For insurance, why should you refuse $4,000/year for only 10 years and prefer $500/year indefinitely? | [
{
"docid": "462892",
"title": "",
"text": "The breakeven amount isn't at 8 years. You calculated how many years of paying $500 it would take to break even with one year of paying $4000. 8 x 10 years = 80 years. So by paying $500/year it will take you 80 years to have spent the same amount ($40000 total) as you did in 10 years. At this point it may seem obvious what the better choice is. Consider where you'll be after 10 years: In scenario #1 you've spent $5000 ($500*10) and have to continue spending $500/year indefinitely. In scenario #2 you've spent $40000 ($4000*10) and don't have to pay any more, but you currently have $35000 ($40000 - $5000) less than you did in scenario #1. If you had stayed with scenario #1 you could invest that $35000 at a measly 1.43% annual return and cover the $500 payments indefinitely without ever dipping into your remaining $35000. Most likely over the long term you'll do better than 1.43% per year and come out far ahead."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "90290",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense."
},
{
"docid": "348327",
"title": "",
"text": "A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property. For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year. Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property. It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts. IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year. That is all money that comes back to you. I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably. No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either."
},
{
"docid": "393934",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In terms of how to make your decision, here are some considerations. Comprehensive insurance often covers other perils besides collision, including fire, theft, hail or other weather damage, additional liability coverage etc. It may be worth looking at your specific policy to see what is covered. No matter what you do, make sure you have some form of personal liability coverage in case you are sued (doesn't necessarily need to be through the auto policy). While it can make financial sense to drop comprehensive coverage once you can afford to self-insure against collision, this will only be the case if you are certain that you can set aside dedicated savings that you would only need to dip in to in the case of a collision or other major loss. For example, if you only have $5-$10,000 in the bank, and you happen to lose your job, and then the next month you happen to be hit in an accident and the car is totaled, could you afford to replace the car out of pocket? I would recommend looking at dropping comprehensive insurance as similar to a \"\"DNR\"\" (do not resuscitate) order for your car, i.e. under no circumstances would you choose repair the car were it totaled or damaged. For example, if your car's exterior were badly damaged in a hail storm (but still ran fine), would you pay $500 or more to repair it, or would you simply get a new car? Ultimately, this is going to be a judgement call based on how much financial risk you want to take on. Personally, I would continue to pay the extra $300 per year for now in order to insure a $6-8,000 asset (5% of the asset value) However, in the next few years the resale value of your car will continue to decline. If in a few years the car were worth $1,500, I would probably not pay the same $300 a year (or 20% of the asset's value). When you should make that choice depends on how many more years of service you expect to get from the car, which is a very localized question. Hope that helps!\""
},
{
"docid": "266907",
"title": "",
"text": "You have several options: If they refuse the second option, and the incident has already happened look on the HSA website for the form and procedure to return a mistaken distribution. I have used the two options with all our medical providers for the last 3 years. Some preferred option1, some preferred option 2, but none refused both. One almost did, but then reconsidered when they realized I was serious. While there is an April 15th deadline to resolve the mistake, I have found that by requesting the provider accept one of the two options the number of mistakes is greatly reduced."
},
{
"docid": "107841",
"title": "",
"text": "Other people lie to the companies about how many miles they drive, so they can't take the mileage figures literally. You aren't specifying whether you want liability only, or more-comprehensive insurance. Stuff happens when you aren't driving. Cars get stolen. Other drivers hit parked cars and leave. Trees fall on parked cars. Move to Virginia where insurance is not required. Just pay $500 a year for not having insurance, and be careful."
},
{
"docid": "104160",
"title": "",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns."
},
{
"docid": "351446",
"title": "",
"text": "4000 miles a year is not a few! European average is about 9000... But nevertheless... But when it comes to risk, then: 1) Nothing stops you from changing circumstances and drive 10 times as much as in previous yers. The insurance remains the same. The only thing the insurance company can do is to charge you more next year (taking the miles you've made this year as a basis for calculations)* 2) Drivers who drive very seldom are a huge risk because of their low experience. I know a few people that drive more than 100 miles only a few times a year, and on average once a year have accident during that drives. It doesn't mean that an average sunday driver have similar risk of accident as daily driver, but it's in no way similar. *) Germany/Switzerland based, the whole EU is likely to be the same"
},
{
"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": "375423",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a \"\"tax home\"\" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86. Your main place of business is in the US and this will not change, because your business isn't relocating. If you are intending to work remotely while you are abroad, you should get educated on the relevant laws on where you are going. Most countries don't take kindly to unauthorized work being performed by foreign visitors. And yes, even though you aren't generating income or involving anyone in their country, the authorities still well may disapprove of your working. My answer to a very similar question on Expatriates.\""
},
{
"docid": "273789",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead."
},
{
"docid": "26584",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have to be firm. Refuse to work excessive overtime. This is why I switched to consulting. 16 hour days suck, but if you're billing for 16 hours, it makes it more bearable. I've recently switched to the \"\"I only care about money\"\" mode of thinking, and switched to hourly pay after being salaried for almost 10 years. And it's not that it's the only thing that matters, but a lot of the rest of this stuff falls into place. It really simplifies things. You don't work for free. Your time is seen as a commodity. You are given goals and targets. You're not dragged into unnecessary meetings. Your opinion is respected. If you have to work saturday, you're sure as hell billing for it. If I take off at 2pm because I want to watch a hockey game, I just stop billing at 2 and there isn't this \"\"I'm not getting my money's worth!\"\" feeling from the manager.\""
},
{
"docid": "247790",
"title": "",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years."
},
{
"docid": "524612",
"title": "",
"text": "ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less."
},
{
"docid": "574691",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, this is fine: You can save up to £20,000 in one type of account or split the allowance across some or all of the other types. You can only pay £4,000 into your Lifetime ISA in a tax year ... Example You could save £11,000 in a cash ISA, £2,000 in a stocks and shares ISA, £3,000 in an innovative finance ISA and £4,000 in a Lifetime ISA in one tax year. https://www.gov.uk/individual-savings-accounts/how-isas-work You might want to consider whether it is wise to be fully invested in shares. If you're going to have to dip into them for things like holidays and a car, you're taking a risk that you might have to sell when the market is low. As a basic rate taxpayer, you have a £1 000 personal savings allowance. You don't need to chase the tax break with a cash ISA, which often have poor rates. However, you should consider keeping some of your savings in cash, for example in a current account that pays decent interest on the balance."
},
{
"docid": "537783",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job."
},
{
"docid": "78825",
"title": "",
"text": "You question is a bit scary to me. You show $2100 rent, and let's even assume that's 100%, i.e. never a vacancy. (Rule of thumb is 10% vacancy. Depending on area, a tenant may stay a year, but when they leave, you might need to have a bit of maintenance and miss 2 months rent) You count the mortgage and taxes, and are left with $500/mo. Where is the list of ongoing expenses? I suggest you put that $500/mo into a separate account and let us know a year from now if anything is left. To Anthony's point. I agree 100%, no one can tell you everything you need to know. But, whatever my answer, or his, other members with experience (similar or different) will add to this, and in the end you'll have a great overview. The truth is that it's easy for me to sit here and see what you may be missing. By the way, if you look at the 'rules of thumb' they will make your head spin. There are those who say the target is for the rent to be 2% of the value of the house. But, there are markets where this will never happen. There's another rule that says the expenses (besides mort/tax) should be planned at 50% of the rent, i.e. you should put aside $1000/mo for expenses over the long term. The new house will be lower of course, but in years past year 10 or so, this number will start to look reasonable."
},
{
"docid": "42430",
"title": "",
"text": "Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam."
},
{
"docid": "97033",
"title": "",
"text": "As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage. Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea."
},
{
"docid": "588719",
"title": "",
"text": "From Experian's FAQ How long does an item remain on my credit report? A credit reporting agency stores information from credit grantors and public records, including bankruptcies, judgments and liens. Potentially negative information, such as missed payments and most public record items, remain on a personal credit report for seven years. The exceptions are Chapters 7, 11 and 12 bankruptcies, which remain for 10 years, and unpaid tax liens, which remain for 15 years. A paid tax lien will remain for seven years. Positive information may remain on a report indefinitely. Paid closed accounts generally display for 10 years. Requests for your credit history remain on your personal credit report for two years. (This is a 'comment' to SpecKK's reply, but too long to make it as an actual comment)"
}
] |
5172 | does interest payment on loan stay the same if I pay early | [
{
"docid": "529418",
"title": "",
"text": "The typical case would be - as you expected - that the interest goes down equally dramatically, and you would pay much less interest. Note that that does not remove your obligation to pay the full 1000 every month - even though you could argue that you are 90 months ahead in paying, you still need to deliver 1000 a month, until it is fully paid. Some mortgages are made differently - they do not allow that. Basically, if you pay a large amount at once, it is considered a 'pre-payment' for the next x month. As a result, you are now x months ahead (and could stop paying for that much time), but your interest stays high. The latter type 'protects' the bank against 'losing' the interest income they already planned for. As a balance, those type of mortgages are typically slightly cheaper (because the bank is in a better position). You did not specify a country; in Germany, typically all mortgages are of the second type; but - you can get 1.35% mortgages... In the US, most are the first. You need to check which type you have, best before you pay a large amount. In the latter case, it is better to invest that money and use it to pay off as soon as you reach the threshold; in the first case, any extra payoff is to your advantage."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "92894",
"title": "",
"text": "Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt. So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month. And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank. This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you. Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early. I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date. If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early. I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems. I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches. And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage."
},
{
"docid": "94373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to \"\"debt free\"\" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans. Ignore interest for the moment, and let's say that we are going to pay off the smallest loans first. When I eliminate these three loans, three of my monthly payments are also gone. Now let's say that with the money I was paying toward these eliminated debts, and some other money I was able to scrape together $500 a month that I want to use toward debt reduction. In four months, I've eliminated the last two $1k debts, and I'm down to 5 debts instead of 10. Achievement Unlocked! Instead of this strategy, I could have paid toward my largest interest rate. Let's say that was one of the $5k loans. I paid the $3k toward the bank to it, and because I still had all the monthly payments after that, I was only able to scrape together $400 a month extra toward debt reduction. In four months, I still have 10 debts. Now let's say that after these four months, I have a bad month, and some unexpected expenses come up. If I've eliminated 5 of my debts, my monthly payments are less, and I'll have an easier month then I would have had if I still had 10 monthly payments to deal with. Each time I eliminate a debt, the amount extra I have each month to tackle the remaining debts gets bigger. And if your goal is eliminating debt quickly, these early wins can really help motivate you on. It really feels like you are getting somewhere when your monthly bills go down. It also helps you with the debt free mindset. You start to see a future where you aren't sending payments to the banks each month. This method of paying your smaller debts first has been popularized in recent years by Dave Ramsey, and he calls it the debt snowball method. There might be other reasons why you would pick one debt over another to pay first. For example, let's say that one of your loans is with a bank that has terrible customer service. They don't send you bills on time, they process your payment late, their website stinks, they are a constant source of stress, and you are getting sick of them. That would be a great reason to pay that debt first, and never set foot in that bank again. In conclusion: If you have a constant amount of extra cash each month that you are going to use to reduce your debt, and this will never change, then, yes, you will save money over the long run by paying the highest interest debt first. However, if you are trying to eliminate your debt as fast as possible, and you are sacrificing in your budget, sending every extra penny you can scrape together toward debt reduction, the \"\"snowball\"\" method of knocking out the small debts first can help motivate you to continue to sacrifice toward your goal, and can also ease the cash flow situation in difficult months when you find yourself with less extra to send in.\""
},
{
"docid": "365899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For scoring purposes, having a DTI between 1-19% is ideal. From Credit Karma: That being said, depending on the loan type you looking at receiving (FHA, VA, Conventional, etc), there are certain max DTIs that you want to stay away from. As a rule, for VA, you want to try to stay away from 41% DTI. Exceptions are made for people with sufficient funds in the bank (3-9 months) to go to higher DTIs. If you keep a 19% utilization overall, that will get you a higher score but it will also show that you have a monthly payment on a particular revolving credit account. While the difference between 729 and 745 seems like a lot of points, there are rules as to how the interest rates are determined. So you will find that many banks have the same or similar rates due to recent legislation in Dodd-Frank. In the days of subprime mortgages, this was not the case. Adjustable rate mortgages did not necessarily go away, the servicer just has to make sure that the buyer can weather the full amount once it reaches maturity, not the lower amount. That is what got a lot of people in trouble. From \"\"how interest rates are set\"\": Before quoting you an interest rate, the loan officer will add on how much he and his branch want to earn. The branch or company sets a policy on how little that can be (the minimum amount the loan officer adds on to his cost) but does not want to overcharge borrowers either (so they set a maximum the loan officer can charge) Between that minimum and maximum, the loan officer has a great deal of flexibility. For example, say the loan officer decides he and his branch are going to earn one point. When you call and ask for a rate quote, he will add one point to the cost of the loan and quote you that rate. According to the rate sheet above, seven percent will cost you zero points. Six and three-quarters percent will cost you one point. In our example, at 7.125% the loan officer and branch would earn one point and have some money left over. This could be used to pay some of the fees (processing, documents, etc), which is how you get a \"\"no fees -no points\"\" mortgage. You just pay a higher interest rate. Where this scoring helps you is in credit card interest rates and auto loan and personal loan rates, which have different rate structures. My personal opinion is to avoid the use of the credit cards. Playing games to try to maximize your score in this situation won't help you when you are talking about 20 points potentially. If you were at the bottom level and were trying to meet a minimum score to qualify, then I would recommend you try to game this scoring system. Take the extra money you would put on a credit card and save it for housing expenses. Taking the Dave Ramsey approach, you should have at least $1000 in emergency funds as most problems you encounter will be less than $1000. That advice rings true.\""
},
{
"docid": "489561",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else."
},
{
"docid": "396559",
"title": "",
"text": "I would just do a loan for a different number of years on your new mortgage. For example, if you just spent 10 years paying off your first house, then for your second, close the first mortgage upon selling, and then open a 20 or 25 year mortgage and the loan end date as well as the payment should remain similar. This would be more do-able if you paid ahead a little to compensate all the early on interest you have to eat. So if you want to finish around the same time, you could look into doing that since you'll have more equity to make a stronger down payment."
},
{
"docid": "274122",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Mathematically, the wisest choice is to invest your extra money somewhere else and not pay off your 0% loan early. An extreme example highlights this. Suppose some colossal company offered to loan you a billion dollars at 0 % interest. Would you take it? Or would you say \"\"No thanks, I don't want that much debt.\"\" You would be crazy not to accept. You could put that money in the safest investments available and still pocket millions while making the minimum payments back to them. Your choice here is essentially the same, but unfortunately, on much smaller scale. That said, math doesn't always trump other factors. You need to factor in your peace of mind, future purchases, the need for future borrowing, your short term income and job security, and whether you think you can reliably make payments on this loan without messing up and triggering fees that wipe out the mathematical advantage of slow paying the loan. You are fortunate because you really can't make a wrong choice here. Paying off debt is never a bad choice IMO. However, it may not always be the best choice.\""
},
{
"docid": "394474",
"title": "",
"text": "Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules."
},
{
"docid": "309298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The PMI premium you pay is dependent on a very large number of variables in the finance market. Mortgage insurance, at the higher inter-bank levels, is handled with credit default swaps (the ones you've been hearing about on the news for the past 4 years), where the lender bundles a block of mortgages, takes them to a guarantor like AIG or Freddie Mac, and says \"\"We bet you that these mortgages will default this month, because the homeowners have little or no equity to deter them; if we win, you agree to swap these debts for their current face value\"\". The lender examines the mortgages, calculates the odds of a default severe enough that the bank would come to collect, using complex environmental heuristics, multiplies by the value of the potential payout, adds a little for their trouble, and says \"\"well, we'll take that bet if you pay us $X\"\". The bank takes the deal, then divvies up that cost among the mortgages and bills the homeowner for their share. The amount you pay for PMI can therefore depend on pretty much anything in this entire process; the exact outstanding amount and equity status of your loan, the similar status of other mortgages your loan will be bundled with for assessment, who the guarantor is, what exact heuristic they use to come up with an amount, the weighting the bank uses to divvy it up, and how much they actually pass on to you. Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that \"\"drivers who switched saved an average of $X\"\"; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no. While the overall amount of the payments does decrease, the PMI has gone up, and that's money you'll never see again just like interest (except you can deduct interest; not PMI). I would do the tax math; find out how much you could deduct over the next year in interest on your current loan, then on their proposed terms, and what the resulting tax bills will be from both. You may save monthly only to pay more than you saved to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. You're also free to negotiate. The worst they can do is stay firm on their offer, but they may take a second look and say \"\"you're right, that PMI is rather high, we'll try again and see if we can do better\"\". They can either negotiate with their insurer, or they can eat some of the PMI cost that they're currently passing on to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "111580",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The simplest argument for overpayment is this: Let's suppose your fixed rate mortgage has an interest rate of 4.00%. Every £1 you can afford to overpay gives you a guaranteed effective return of 4.00% gross. Yes your monthly mortgage payment will stay the same; however, the proportion of it that's paying off interest every month will be less, and the amount that's actually going into acquiring the bricks and mortar of your home will be greater. So in a sense your returns are \"\"inverted\"\" i.e. because every £1 you overpay is £1 you don't need to keep paying 4% a year to continue borrowing. In your case this return will be locked away for a few more years, until you can remortgage the property. However, compared to some other things you could do with your excess £1s, this is a very generous and safe return that is well above the average rate of UK inflation for the past ten years. Let's compare that to some other options for your extra £1s: Cash savings: The most competitive rate I can currently find for instant access is 1.63% from ICICI. If you are prepared to lock your money away until March 2020, Melton Mowbray Building Society has a fixed rate bond that will pay you 2.60% gross. On these accounts you pay income tax at your marginal rate on any interest received. For a basic rate taxpayer that's 20%. If you're a higher rate taxpayer that means 40% of this interest is deducted as tax. In other words: assuming you pay income tax at one of these rates, to get an effective return of 4.00% on cash savings you'd have to find an account paying: Cash ISAs: these accounts are tax sheltered, so the income tax equation isn't an issue. However, the best rate I can find on a 4 year fixed rate cash ISA is 2.35% from Leeds Building Society. As you can see, it's a long way below the returns you can get from overpaying. To find returns such as that you would have to take a lot more risk with your money – for example: Stock market investments: For example, an index fund tracking the FTSE 100 (UK-listed blue chip companies) could have given you a total return of 3.62% over the last 3 years (past performance does not equal future returns). Over a longer time period this return should be better – historical performance suggests somewhere between 5 to 6% is the norm. But take a closer look and you'll see that over the last six months of 2015 this fund had a negative return of 6.11%, i.e. for a time you'd have been losing money. How would you feel about that kind of volatility? In conclusion: I understand your frustration at having locked in to a long term fixed rate (effectively insuring against rates going up), then seeing rates stay low for longer than most commentators thought. However, overpaying your mortgage is one way you can turn this situation into a pretty good deal for yourself – a 4% guaranteed return is one that most cash savers would envy. In response to comments, I've uploaded a spreadsheet that I hope will make the numbers clearer. I've used an example of owing £100k over 25 years at an unvarying 4% interest, and shown the scenarios with and without making a £100/month voluntary overpayment, assuming your lender allows this. Here's the sheet: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294640994/Mortgage-Amortization-Sheet-Mortgage-Overpayment-Comparison After one year you have made £1,200 in overpayments. You now owe £1,222.25 less than if you hadn't overpaid. After five years you owe £6,629 less on your mortgage, having overpaid in £6,000 so far. Should you remortgage at this point that £629 is your return so far, and you also have £6k more equity in the property. If you keep going: After 65 months you are paying more capital than interest out of your monthly payment. This takes until 93 months without overpayments. In total, if you keep up £100/month overpayment, you pay £15,533 less interest overall, and end your mortgage six years early. You can play with the spreadsheet inputs to see the effect of different overpayment amounts. Hope this helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "104563",
"title": "",
"text": "Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all."
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
},
{
"docid": "394191",
"title": "",
"text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary."
},
{
"docid": "82809",
"title": "",
"text": "It really depends on the terms of your loan. For example, some loans have a pre-payment penalty. You will just have to ask your lender to know for sure. That said. In almost all cases, you can save considerable interest by making extra payments towards the principal. Be careful though, some lenders require you to specifically mark the payment to be applied to the loan principal and if you don't designate it as such, they will just apply it as an early payment for future months and not reduce your balance until that future payment is due, which doesn't help at all. Another option to reduce your total interest costs, though more common for larger loans like mortgages, is to split the payment into multiple parts and pay more than once a month instead of a single payment each month. This only works if they calculate interest daily and would be useless if they do it monthly. They key is knowing the terms of your loan. Despite it not being in their best interest (pun intended), most lenders will work with you on a strategy to help you minimize the interest cost in the name of customer service."
},
{
"docid": "472739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He's paying the interest and you're paying the principal. If you're making minimum monthly payments, you'll still be doing the same thing 25-30 years from now. I think Parker's advice was very, very good, but I'd like to add to it a little of my own. Whatever dollar amount your son is sending to you as payment, encourage him to continue doing that. Only instead of paying you, have him put that money into a savings plan of some kind. You mentioned that he's struggling now, yet able to come up with approximately (my best guess) $200/mo. I guarantee you that if he puts that $200/mo back into his pocket, he'll still be struggling every month yet have nothing to show for it. My suggestion changes nothing in his daily life, yet gives him $2400 at the end of every year. I was in a somewhat similiar situation as your son, only to the tune of $13,000. About 20 years ago, I got a loan and bought a new truck in which to use to go back and forth to work every day. The first 5 months the payments to the bank went as planned. Then my wife announces that \"\"we're\"\" pregnant. So my parents figured it would be best to just pay off my loan to the bank, avoiding any further interest charges, and take that truck payment and put it away for a rainy day. At 33 y/o, with my first child on the way, I finally started saving some of my money. It was good advice on their part because the rainy days came! They never asked me to pay them back, however I did offer. I've been tucking away $300-400/mo in the bank every month since then because I just got into the habit. Good thing I did too. In the past 10 years I've had to bury both of my parents, one sister and two wives and I'll tell ya, one thing that was comforting was the fact that I had the money. The little truck I bought 20 years ago is now my son's. It has around 260,000 miles on it now. When he trades it in for a newer vehicle, I will probably loan him the money and have him make payments to me rather than the bank. I, too, am not one to pay interest if I can help it. If he defaults, he's my son. I just won't buy him another vehicle! Or maybe he'll get into the same habit of saving money the same way I did. Like JohnFx said, money loaned to family should be regarded as a gift, otherwise you'll end up losing your money AND your family member! Hope some of this helps you make your decision.\""
},
{
"docid": "93248",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more."
},
{
"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": "321490",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)"
},
{
"docid": "129676",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high."
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
5172 | does interest payment on loan stay the same if I pay early | [
{
"docid": "539165",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the type of loan. Fully amortized loans have a schedule of payments don't recalculate as you pay. If you want to make an additional payment you need to contact the lender to apply your payment toward principle and reamortize the loan. Otherwise all your additional payment will do is change the amount due on your next payment, or push out your next payment due date. Regarding interest calculation, you owe interest on the principle outstanding. Say you have a 10 year loan (120 Months), at 5% APR, and a $1,000 payment (this means you borrowed roughly $94,000) Each month the amount of interest owed reduces because there is less principle outstanding. The reason loans are amortized like this is so the borrower has a predictable, known, monthly amount due."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "368770",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer depends on what else you'd do with that 2%. But first, let's look at some actual numbers. For simplicity's sake, let's say you have a £100k mortgage outstanding, your payment is £1000 per month, and you want to pay £1000 extra per month. 2% interest, compounded monthly for simplicity, so .02/12 = .00167% per month. (Your interest is probably compounded daily, but this simplifies the math and isn't too far off of it.) If you don't pay it off early, then first month, you'll owe £100167, minus £1000, so £99167. Second month, £99332 after interest, then £98332 after payment. So on and so forth. After 24th month (2 years), you'll owe £79613 after that 24th payment. So you've paid off £20,000 of balance, at the cost of £24,000; total interest paid, £3,613. If you do pay off another £1000, so you put a total of £2000 in per month, which is penalized (.02*1000=£20) each payment, for a total of £48,000 paid over the 24 months. After that 24 months, you have a balance of £55,637, so a bit over £44k paid off, at the cost of £48k; total interest and fees paid, £3,637. So, at the end of the 24 month period, you've paid an extra £24 in interest/fees than you would have otherwise. You of course have a lower loan balance at the end, but you haven't saved any money overall, and if you're just refinancing at this point into a new loan, you're no better off (and very slightly worse off), even assuming the money will just sit in your bank account and do nothing. I think with daily compounding interest it will be around the same or slightly better, but it's not a significant amount. Now, there is a third option, perhaps: pay £24000 (so after penalty, £23,520) on the first month. This is that whole extra £1000 per month, all up front, where it makes the most difference for interest. This does help, some: you pay £3,172 in interest, around £450 less. Sounds good to me, right? Except, you might be able to make more than £450 with that £24,000. £450 is 1.875% of £24,000, meaning you just need to make a 2% return on your money to beat out this option (and in fact, that's not surprising, given the 2% interest rate!). Investing in the market, even conservatively, is likely, though not guaranteed, to be beneficial; over a 2 year period it's fairly risky, though if you can think over 5-10 years, it's very likely to be substantially better. Even a 4-5% return (well below long-term market averages) will be quite a bit better, and the market's down quite a bit right now - so it might be even better than that - though it's still a risk. You can make a term deposit (looks like \"\"Fixed rate bond\"\" is the term), even, and at least break even - right now it looks like 1.9% is common for a 2 year term deposit in the UK. In total - my recommendation would be against paying off the mortgage early, particularly in this 2% interest rate period. 2% is around inflation levels, meaning you're not really paying any real interest, from one point of view. Once the rates are higher (4%+) then it may be worth considering. The exception here - basically the standard exception to these questions - is if you are otherwise going to spend the money on luxuries. In that case, you're better off prepaying the mortgage, at least from a personal finance perspective, if you can do so up front - but not if you're going to do it monthly. What is better for you personally in this regard is a question only you can answer, of course.\""
},
{
"docid": "129676",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high."
},
{
"docid": "104563",
"title": "",
"text": "Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all."
},
{
"docid": "85622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming you are talking about an LLC in the United States, there are no tax repercussions on the LLC itself, because LLCs use pass-through taxation in the U.S., meaning that the LLC does not pay taxes. Whatever you take out of the LLC in the form of distributions goes onto your personal income tax as ordinary income, and you pay personal income tax on it. See this link on the subject from the Nolo.com web site: Tax treatment of an LLC from the Nolo.com web site Repayment of your loan by the LLC would just be another business expense for the business itself. I guess the question would then turn on what your personal tax repercussion would be for payments received from the LLC on the loan. I would guess (and I emphasize \"\"guess\"\") that you would pay tax on any interest gain from the loan payments, which makes the assumption you made the loan to include interest. If not (in other words, if you made this an interest-free loan) then it would be considered a wash for tax purposes and you would have no tax liability for yourself. To reiterate, the LLC (if it is a U.S.. entity) does not pay taxes. Taxation of LLC income is based on whatever distributions the principals take out of it, which is then claimed as taxable personal income. My apologies to littleadv for not making my prior answer (I deleted it) more clear about my answer assuming you were speaking of a U.S.-chartered LLC. I hope this helps. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "119351",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation. If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing. If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster. Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance). If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early. But you know your circumstances better than we do. If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up. Fully fund your 401k and IRA. Fill out your emergency fund. Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon. If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so. That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan). There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds). If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage. And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes. If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment. Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now. The problem is that this might not be the best time for that. The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash. That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now. I'd pay down the mortgage. You know the return on that. No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest. I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly. Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years.\""
},
{
"docid": "92894",
"title": "",
"text": "Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt. So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month. And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank. This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you. Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early. I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date. If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early. I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems. I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches. And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage."
},
{
"docid": "241326",
"title": "",
"text": "Your goal of wanting to eliminate your debts early is great. Generally, you can save more money by paying off loans with higher interest rates first. However, it sounds like you are excited about the idea of eliminating one of your car loans in two months. There is nothing wrong with that; it is good to be excited about eliminating debt. I like your plan. Pay off the $14.6k loan first, then apply the $635 monthly payment to the $19.4k loan. You'll have that loan paid off almost 3 years early. Perhaps you'll find some additional money to apply to it and get rid of it even earlier. After you've eliminated both car loans, save up that $1000/month for your next car. That will allow you to pay cash for it, which will allow you to negotiate the best price and save interest. 0% loans are not free money. Other answers will tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your 0% loan, but I think there can be good reasons to eliminate smaller loans first, regardless of interest."
},
{
"docid": "94435",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here is a simple loan payment calculator. If you allow early principal repayment, then you should just be able to plug in the new principal amount to find his new monthly payment (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). Are you averse to creating a spreadsheet yourself in excel? I suppose it could become quite an undertaking, depending on how detailed you chose to get with the interest. Seems like it would be more direct and serve the dual purpose of recordkeeping. It's important to agree in advance whether pre-payments go to principal or go partly to interest (prepaying for periodic amounts not yet due, which are mixed principal and interest). It's a family loan, so it probably makes sense to allow the prepayments to pay down principal; you don't need to structure your interest income and prevent him from depriving you of interest income (which many bank loans will do). Allowing early principal repayment is pretty easy to calculate in your own excel spreadsheet, since you just need to know the remaining principal, time outstanding, and the interest rate. Note that if you are a US citizen, then the interest paid to you will be taxable income to you (\"\"ordinary income\"\" rate). Your brother will not be able to deduct the interest payments, unless maybe they are used for something like his business or perhaps mortgage. There is no deduction for just a personal loan. Also, if you instead structured it without interest, then the interest not charged would be considered a gift under US gift tax law. As long as the annual interest were under the gift exclusion amount ($14,000) then there would be no gift tax. With no interest and no gift, you would not have tax consequences.\""
},
{
"docid": "82809",
"title": "",
"text": "It really depends on the terms of your loan. For example, some loans have a pre-payment penalty. You will just have to ask your lender to know for sure. That said. In almost all cases, you can save considerable interest by making extra payments towards the principal. Be careful though, some lenders require you to specifically mark the payment to be applied to the loan principal and if you don't designate it as such, they will just apply it as an early payment for future months and not reduce your balance until that future payment is due, which doesn't help at all. Another option to reduce your total interest costs, though more common for larger loans like mortgages, is to split the payment into multiple parts and pay more than once a month instead of a single payment each month. This only works if they calculate interest daily and would be useless if they do it monthly. They key is knowing the terms of your loan. Despite it not being in their best interest (pun intended), most lenders will work with you on a strategy to help you minimize the interest cost in the name of customer service."
},
{
"docid": "28809",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Most likely that's the amount of interest that accrued on the loan while you were in school. If you had paid that amount before 6/21, you would have just paid off accrued interest and your loan balance would have stayed the same. Since you did not pay the interest, it will be added to your loan balance and you will just pay it off as part of the loan (plus compounded interest). If you pay off your loan at 5% over 30 years (hopefully you won't, but that's what they're amortized for), that $350 will compound and become $1,563. Essentially you're \"\"borrowing\"\" $350 at 5% interest for 30 years. Hopefully that motivates you to pay it off sooner that that...\""
},
{
"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": "110081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\""
},
{
"docid": "497569",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm a woman in her early 30s who has a bachelors degree and a job. I rent an apartment, own my car and spend within my means because that's what I was taught. When my sister and now ex-bro-in-law decided to buy a house in the middle of the bubble, despite having no saved money and a child on the way I shook my head at them. They responded with, 'Real estate only goes up, it's an investment'...I laughed and told them they were fucking stupid to pay $350,000 for an older 2 bedroom house in Phoenix, AZ that was severely overpriced but they said, 'well it's 0 down and the interest rate is like NOTHING!' Cut to now, the same house is worth MAYBE $110,000 but ya know that great interest rate they got at the beginning wasn't so great when they had to refi so they didn't want to pay their payments for a $110,000 house with a $350,000 loan so they stopped paying their mortgage. Nothing really happened except some letters were sent and was told that the only way to get a better interest rate was to HAVE to miss a certain number of payments (maybe 6 months) in order to qualify for the loan the Obama admin had created. At some point that year she decided to get a boob job, tummy tuck and liposuction and her and her husband felt the need to purchase all kinds of new things. She eventually did qualify for that government help and was totally forgiven for the 6-8 months of payments they missed... so CLEARLY purposely missing payments would have been considered 'very smart' by those same analysts who called what American Airlines did as 'very smart. So I sit here, with my morals in tact and they sit there like a million other people in this country having their cake and eating it too so I have to wonder WHAT THE FUCK? Was I the stupid one for not following the rest of the asshole idiot sheep and screwing all the people with what I would have thought were basic morals? It appears so."
},
{
"docid": "365899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For scoring purposes, having a DTI between 1-19% is ideal. From Credit Karma: That being said, depending on the loan type you looking at receiving (FHA, VA, Conventional, etc), there are certain max DTIs that you want to stay away from. As a rule, for VA, you want to try to stay away from 41% DTI. Exceptions are made for people with sufficient funds in the bank (3-9 months) to go to higher DTIs. If you keep a 19% utilization overall, that will get you a higher score but it will also show that you have a monthly payment on a particular revolving credit account. While the difference between 729 and 745 seems like a lot of points, there are rules as to how the interest rates are determined. So you will find that many banks have the same or similar rates due to recent legislation in Dodd-Frank. In the days of subprime mortgages, this was not the case. Adjustable rate mortgages did not necessarily go away, the servicer just has to make sure that the buyer can weather the full amount once it reaches maturity, not the lower amount. That is what got a lot of people in trouble. From \"\"how interest rates are set\"\": Before quoting you an interest rate, the loan officer will add on how much he and his branch want to earn. The branch or company sets a policy on how little that can be (the minimum amount the loan officer adds on to his cost) but does not want to overcharge borrowers either (so they set a maximum the loan officer can charge) Between that minimum and maximum, the loan officer has a great deal of flexibility. For example, say the loan officer decides he and his branch are going to earn one point. When you call and ask for a rate quote, he will add one point to the cost of the loan and quote you that rate. According to the rate sheet above, seven percent will cost you zero points. Six and three-quarters percent will cost you one point. In our example, at 7.125% the loan officer and branch would earn one point and have some money left over. This could be used to pay some of the fees (processing, documents, etc), which is how you get a \"\"no fees -no points\"\" mortgage. You just pay a higher interest rate. Where this scoring helps you is in credit card interest rates and auto loan and personal loan rates, which have different rate structures. My personal opinion is to avoid the use of the credit cards. Playing games to try to maximize your score in this situation won't help you when you are talking about 20 points potentially. If you were at the bottom level and were trying to meet a minimum score to qualify, then I would recommend you try to game this scoring system. Take the extra money you would put on a credit card and save it for housing expenses. Taking the Dave Ramsey approach, you should have at least $1000 in emergency funds as most problems you encounter will be less than $1000. That advice rings true.\""
},
{
"docid": "49354",
"title": "",
"text": "It is pretty easy to setup a spreadsheet for calculating interest payments and remaining balance. Do a quick search online. You may want to put it in something like Google Docs, where brother can view the status, but only you can edit it. When you get a payment, a portion goes to interest and another to principle. The formulas will do the work for you. However, I feel that there is a bigger issue. The math may seem like a good deal for the both of you, but I would be very hesitant to loan a family member money. What if he does not pay? What if he is late with a payment and goes on a vacation himself? What if his significant other resents the payment that you collect which precludes her from buying a new TV, etc... People come to hate/resent big corporations that they have to make payments. How much more so one that has a face....that comes over and eats? While this loan is outstanding holidays may never be the same. Is the loan a real need? Are you in a position to give them the money? You may want to consider the latter. Is there a reason he can't just borrow the money from the bank?"
},
{
"docid": "93248",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more."
},
{
"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": "83543",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years. They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house. Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance. I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea. The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get. Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde). If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting. This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board. I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde). Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles. Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house. Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a \"\"Spaarhypotheek\"\" (linked life insurance) and a \"\"Bankspaarhypotheek\"\" (linked savings account). In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same. In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced. In both cases, interest payments were less each month. I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be.\""
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
}
] |
5178 | Formula that predicts whether one is better off investing or paying down debt | [
{
"docid": "240261",
"title": "",
"text": "I ended up writing a simulation in R. Here is my code: It produces a plot like this: This code assumes you have a lump sum and either wish to pay down a loan or invest it all immediately. Feedback welcome."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "439459",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off the debt is low-risk, low-reward. You're effectively guaranteed a 4% return. If you buy a mutual fund, you're going to have to take some risk to have a decent chance of getting better than 4% and change return in the long run, which probably means a fund that invests primarily in stocks. Buying a stock mutual fund is high-risk, high reward, especially when you're in significant debt. On the other hand, 4% and change is very low-interest. If you wanted to buy stocks on margin, financing stock investments directly with debt, you'd pay a heck of a lot more. Bottom line: It comes down to your personal risk tolerance."
},
{
"docid": "245198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I listened to about 15 minutes of the video, but then I read your other link, which gives a much better summary. This guy is an idiot. Just consider this statement: \"\"If everyone was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget.\"\" This is true to some extent. It wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget in one year. Experts often cite things like debt to GDP to show that a country's debt is ballooning, but they don't mention this obvious fact: We don't have to pay off our debts in a single year. Nobody does. Debt to GDP is a ratio and not the end all be all. Reinhart & Rogoff wrote a paper about how countries with high debt to GDP tend to have slower economic growth, but they don't mention that this occurs at every stage of debt growth. See Debt & Delusion by Dr. Robert Shiller for a great article on this subject. The daily kos article goes over most of the points I would make, but let me generalize a little: Always be wary of doomsday-predictors and free advice. This guy talks about correctly calling Fannie and Freddie. Even if he's right, why is he mentioning it? If he's such a good accountant and financial expert, surely he could've seen the tech bubble before the housing bubble right? It took a lot of analysis to figure out that CDO's were junk - anybody with the ability to read a balance sheet could see that many tech companies were overvalued. Every now and then, you get one hit wonders. They might never be right again, but they have the \"\"credentials.\"\" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with \"\"secret, genius\"\" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions. The US will implode if nobody accepts our money. Nobody will accept our money if we're no longer the reserve currency or hyperinflation occurs or something like that. People have been predicting doom after every bubble, but that doesn't make it true. Some of his points (like the fact that we have too much debt) are valid, and I predict that the world will go into a period of deleveraging now. Nonetheless, the whole \"\"we will implode\"\" story is a scary picture, but it's just that - a picture.\""
},
{
"docid": "441353",
"title": "",
"text": "Clearly this is doable and many people are doing exactly this. At that kind of rate many will tell you to borrow as much as you can and invest. This strategy does not work if you spend that money on dumb stuff, but you don't seem the type to do such a thing. In some will argue that it is the only logical thing to do. Some will say that this is not a good idea due to risk. Your chosen investment could lose value. If this happens you would have been better off paying down your mortgage. While my own interest rate is not as good as yours, it still pretty darn low (1.97%) after my tax discount. Despite that I am aggressively paying down my mortgage. My wife and I want to be debt free. There is a certain freedom that comes along with that which cannot be explained by numbers."
},
{
"docid": "427206",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money."
},
{
"docid": "180295",
"title": "",
"text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!"
},
{
"docid": "302448",
"title": "",
"text": "$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly."
},
{
"docid": "306808",
"title": "",
"text": "It's pretty simple - the less money you owe the less interest you pay. Paying down debt gives a guaranteed return of the interest rate of the debt. So paying off your starter loan is equivalent to a 4% return. That's not a bad return in the current environment so it makes sense to do it unless you can find an investment which you think is likely to pay significantly better. (Note this is a general answer, not Netherlands-specific. There may be other considerations, around tax for example, which have to be factored into the calculation)."
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "254245",
"title": "",
"text": "What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495. That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment. In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires. Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market. Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated. The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value. I.e. with ∴ by induction So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found. Solving for r If you could obtain 9.64431% per month on the stock market the $x cash in hand required would be calculated by This is equal to the lump sum payment, so the calculated interest is comparable to the stock market rate of return. If you could gain more than 9.64431% per month on the stock market it would be better to invest and take the loan. Recurrence Form Solving the recurrence form shows the calculation is equivalent to the loan formula, e.g. becomes v[m + 1] = (1 + y) v[m] - p where v[0] = pv where In the final month v[final] = 0, i.e. when m = 3 Compare with the earlier loan formula: s = (d - d (1 + r)^-n) / r They are exactly equivalent, which is quite interesting, (because it wasn't immediately obvious to me that what the lender charges is the mirror opposite of what you gain by investing). The present value can be now be calculated using the formula. Still assuming the 8% stock market return is per month. If the stock market yield is 8% per annum effective rate and if it is given as a nominal annual yield, 8% compounded monthly"
},
{
"docid": "529229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\""
},
{
"docid": "377742",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't say your level of consumer debt. You don't say how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have debt, pay it off before you invest. If you don't have an emergency fund (X months' expenses, pick your own X) get that before investing. If you have neither, get a small emergency fund, and then throw as much as you can to getting rid of debt. Beyond that, look for prudent investments. They're not the same as conservative investments. To know what's prudent, learn about the ones you listed and what determines their prices. Learn how or why they go up or down in value."
},
{
"docid": "89622",
"title": "",
"text": "There's some really questionable advice in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The one that I always thought was bad advice was when he wrote that people should always pay themselves first and worry about paying down debts later. So if you've got big credit card debts, you should first allocate money to saving and investing and pay your debts later. He says that will inspire you to come up with creative ways to get income to pay off that extra debt because you're under pressure. I don't buy it though. It's something that sounds good, but if you apply it, you end up broke quickly."
},
{
"docid": "415432",
"title": "",
"text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)"
},
{
"docid": "537783",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job."
},
{
"docid": "429153",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered. One is that you should buy the car with cash - always. Car debt is not usually considered \"\"good debt,\"\" as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate. Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it. On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car. In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone. Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment. Your personal comfort level may vary. Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car. Someone else took the hit on the \"\"drive it off the lot\"\" decline in price for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "39819",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "545991",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on recognizing your problem and getting serious about paying down your debt. That's the first step. If you have a loan with 80% interest, yes, get that paid off as quickly as possible. Much better to be paying even the outrageous 20% on a credit card than the astounding 80%. As others have noted, if you can get a consolidation loan or refinance that 80% to something more realistic, do it and do it as soon as possible. Heck, if you have the credit limit, use the credit card to off the 80% loan. 20% on a credit card is better than 80%. Of course you may not have enough credit limit to do that. Cash-back rewards are nice if you are paying off the credit card balance each month. But in your case, you're not. 25% with a 2% cash back reward means you're still paying 23% the first month and 25% every month after that. That's worse than 20%. Remember you pay the interest on your balance every month that you don't pay it off, while a cash-back is a one-time thing. So if you're not going to pay off the balance, AT BEST a cash back reward could be effectively subtracted from the interest rate. 20% with a 2% cashback is effectively somewhere between 18% and 20%. If you're comparing 20% with 2% cashback to 19%, could be complicated to figure out which is better. But it's clearly worse than anything more than 20%. Besides that, you don't say what your total debt is in relation to your income. If you have a lot of debt, I'd say first thing is to figure out what you can do to cut your expenses. Lots of things that people call \"\"fixed expenses\"\" aren't really fixed at all, they just take some effort to cut. Like if you have a big expensive house and you're paying a large mortgage, you can (probably) cut that by selling the place and moving to a cheaper house. (I say \"\"probably\"\" because the housing market may make it impossible to sell for enough to improve your situation.) If you have large heating bills, you can turn the thermostat down and get used to wearing a sweater around the house. Etc. Final note: I've talked to a fair number of people with debt problems, and I often hear them say, \"\"Yes, I really need to cut my spending and start paying off these debts. And I intend to ... right after I buy this one last thing that I really really want.\"\" But of course after that there's one more vital purchase, and then another, etc. Avoid falling into this trap.\""
},
{
"docid": "295861",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're able to pop this data into excel you can quickly calculate the solution. Every one of these problems boils down to 'Interest Rate', 'Term', 'Payment', 'Present Value', and 'Future Value' (FV will typically be zero). Excel has a formula to calculate any of these components based off of the other inputs. In this case, the given information is: Interest Rate: 7.56% Term: 36 Months Monthly PMT: $350 Present Value: ? You can use the =PV() formula and input the other known values. One caveat is that you'll need to adjust the interest rate to account for the monthly compounding. So, the formula would be =PV(.0063,36,-350). This gives a result of $11,242, which is the amount you'd be able to borrow. [All of these can also be solved on the TI-84+, but I don't have my old calculator on me to walk through the steps] To calculate the total interest paid, you would then find out how much you'll be paying over the life of the loan. If your monthly payment is $350 for 36 months, the total amount you'd pay is $12,600 ($350*36). Subtract the $11,242 calculated in step one, and you are left with $1,358 worth of interest. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you want me to go over any of the steps in more detail. As a former finance student, I would highly recommend locking down the TVM functions, as they will pop up quite often throughout your schooling/career. Best of luck!"
}
] |
5178 | Formula that predicts whether one is better off investing or paying down debt | [
{
"docid": "561056",
"title": "",
"text": "you should always invest if your investment rate of return is higher than your interest rate Your next line, about standard deviation is dead on. There are too many variables to give an exact answer here, in my opinion. The main reason is that one variable isn't easy to quantify - One's risk tolerance. Clearly, there's one extreme, the 18% credit card. Unless you are funding loanshark type rates of 2%/week, it's safe to say that 18% debt should take priority over any investments, except for the matched 401(k) deposits. What I think you're talking about is something we've addressed here in multiple threads. Do I prepay my sub 4% mortgage or invest? In this case, (and to Noah's comment) the question is whether you can expect a post-tax return of over 3% during your time horizon. I look at the return for 15 years from 1998-2013 and see a 6% CAGR for the S&P. I chose 15 years, as the choice is often one of paying a 30 year mortgage faster, as fast as 15. The last 15 years offer a pretty bad scenario, 2 crashes and a mortgage crisis. 6% after long term gains would get you 5.1% net. You can pull the data back to 1871 and run CAGR numbers for the timeframe of your choosing. I haven't done it yet, but I imagine there's no 15 year span that lags the 3% target I cite. What makes it more complex is that the investment isn't lump sum. It may not be obvious, but CAGR is a dollar invested at T=0, and returns calculated to T=final year. It would take a bit of spreadsheeting to invest the extra funds every month/year over your period of analysis. In the end, there are still those who will choose to pay off their 4% mortgage regardless of what the numbers show. Even if the 15 year result showed worst case 3.5% (almost no profit) and an average 10%, the feeling of risk is more than many will want."
}
] | [
{
"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": "445655",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house."
},
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "529229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\""
},
{
"docid": "570178",
"title": "",
"text": "At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone."
},
{
"docid": "429153",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered. One is that you should buy the car with cash - always. Car debt is not usually considered \"\"good debt,\"\" as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate. Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it. On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car. In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone. Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment. Your personal comfort level may vary. Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car. Someone else took the hit on the \"\"drive it off the lot\"\" decline in price for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "387722",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\""
},
{
"docid": "396889",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\""
},
{
"docid": "89622",
"title": "",
"text": "There's some really questionable advice in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The one that I always thought was bad advice was when he wrote that people should always pay themselves first and worry about paying down debts later. So if you've got big credit card debts, you should first allocate money to saving and investing and pay your debts later. He says that will inspire you to come up with creative ways to get income to pay off that extra debt because you're under pressure. I don't buy it though. It's something that sounds good, but if you apply it, you end up broke quickly."
},
{
"docid": "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": "262772",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't recommend paying off the debts. Both are low-interest tax-deductible loans that you've been handling well enough to have significant savings, and you can likely earn a higher interest rate by investing than you could by paying down the debt. Putting your money into vanguard ETFs or a betterment account will likely be better in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "572272",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "245198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I listened to about 15 minutes of the video, but then I read your other link, which gives a much better summary. This guy is an idiot. Just consider this statement: \"\"If everyone was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget.\"\" This is true to some extent. It wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget in one year. Experts often cite things like debt to GDP to show that a country's debt is ballooning, but they don't mention this obvious fact: We don't have to pay off our debts in a single year. Nobody does. Debt to GDP is a ratio and not the end all be all. Reinhart & Rogoff wrote a paper about how countries with high debt to GDP tend to have slower economic growth, but they don't mention that this occurs at every stage of debt growth. See Debt & Delusion by Dr. Robert Shiller for a great article on this subject. The daily kos article goes over most of the points I would make, but let me generalize a little: Always be wary of doomsday-predictors and free advice. This guy talks about correctly calling Fannie and Freddie. Even if he's right, why is he mentioning it? If he's such a good accountant and financial expert, surely he could've seen the tech bubble before the housing bubble right? It took a lot of analysis to figure out that CDO's were junk - anybody with the ability to read a balance sheet could see that many tech companies were overvalued. Every now and then, you get one hit wonders. They might never be right again, but they have the \"\"credentials.\"\" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with \"\"secret, genius\"\" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions. The US will implode if nobody accepts our money. Nobody will accept our money if we're no longer the reserve currency or hyperinflation occurs or something like that. People have been predicting doom after every bubble, but that doesn't make it true. Some of his points (like the fact that we have too much debt) are valid, and I predict that the world will go into a period of deleveraging now. Nonetheless, the whole \"\"we will implode\"\" story is a scary picture, but it's just that - a picture.\""
},
{
"docid": "549359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\""
},
{
"docid": "377742",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't say your level of consumer debt. You don't say how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have debt, pay it off before you invest. If you don't have an emergency fund (X months' expenses, pick your own X) get that before investing. If you have neither, get a small emergency fund, and then throw as much as you can to getting rid of debt. Beyond that, look for prudent investments. They're not the same as conservative investments. To know what's prudent, learn about the ones you listed and what determines their prices. Learn how or why they go up or down in value."
},
{
"docid": "531051",
"title": "",
"text": "I completely agree with Pete that a 401(k) loan is not the answer, but I have an alternate proposal: Reduce your 401(k) contribution down to the 4% that you get a match on. If you are cash poor now and have debts to be cleaned up, those need to be addressed before retirement savings. You'll have plenty of time to make up the lost savings after you get the debts paid off. If your company matches 50% (meaning you have to contribute 8% to get the 4% match), then consider temporarily stopping your 401(k) altogether. A 100% match is very hard to give up, but a 50% match is less difficult. You have plenty of years left ahead of you to make up the lost match. Plus, the pain of knowing you're leaving money on the table will incentivize you to get the loans paid as quickly as possible. It seems to me that I would be reducing middle to high interest debt while also saving myself $150 per month. No, you'd be deferring $150 per month for an additional two years, and not reducing debt at all, just moving it to a different lender. Interest rate is not your problem. Right now you're paying less than $30 per month in interest on these 3 loans and about $270 in principal, and at the current rate should have them paid off in about 2 years. You're wanting to extend these loans to 4 years by borrowing from your retirement savings. I would buckle down, reduce expenses wherever possible (cable? cell phone? coffee? movies? restaurants?) until you get these debts paid off. You make $70,000 per year, or almost $6,000 per month. I bet if you try hard enough you can come up with $1,100 fairly quickly. Then the next $1,200 should come twice as fast. Then attack the next $4,000. (You can argue whether the $1,200 should come first because of the interest rate, but in the end it doesn't matter - either one should be paid off very quickly, so the interest saved is negligible) Maybe you can get one of them paid off, get yourself some breathing room, then loosen up a little bit, but extending the pain for an additional two years is not wise. Some more drastic measures:"
},
{
"docid": "516387",
"title": "",
"text": "The other responses are correct in that financially, you should pay off the highest-interest-rate debt first, while paying the minimum on any lower-interest-rate debt to avoid any fees or penalties. However, there is one more trick you might consider: Unless you have the $20k available to pay the Discover debt immediately (and you say you have $9.5k so far), you could roll over your private debt over to a new card with a lower interest rate. It's pretty common to find balance transfers deals that charge a 3% transfer fee to have 0% APY for 1 year. If you are an organized person and are sure you won't forget to balance transfer again in the future, this would bring your private debt down to ~3%/year, and make your highest effective interest rate the $7.5k debt at 6%, and you could pay that down first. That's the extreme version, and requires you to set a calendar alert 10-11 months in the future. A less-extreme tactic would be to try to switch your private debt once to a lower rate - you probably could find a card with 0% APY for 1 year and then 7-8% afterwards, without continuing to balance transfer in the future. Then it would be closer to negligible which debt you chose to pay down first (between private and Perkins), and in that case I'd advocate finishing off the smaller debt entirely (because it would be the highest rate at that moment, and to feel good about knocking one off, and to reduce the number of fees and credit score hits if you ever took a vacation and was late on a monthly payment)."
},
{
"docid": "549601",
"title": "",
"text": "I know of no generic formula for determining if an investment property is a good investment, besides the trivial formula. Make sure your income is greater than your expenses, and hope the value of the property doesn't drop. Some people will tell you to expect the monthly rent to be a fixed percentage of the purchase price, but that is a goal not a certainty. It is also impossible to estimate the difficulty renting the property, or how long the roof will last. Taxes can't be predicted, as the value of the house increase, so do the property taxes, but you might not be able to increase the rent. You can't even predict the quality of the tenant. Will they damage the property? Or skip out early? You will need somebody who knows the local market to estimate the local conditions, and help you determine the estimated costs and income based on the actual property involved."
},
{
"docid": "295861",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're able to pop this data into excel you can quickly calculate the solution. Every one of these problems boils down to 'Interest Rate', 'Term', 'Payment', 'Present Value', and 'Future Value' (FV will typically be zero). Excel has a formula to calculate any of these components based off of the other inputs. In this case, the given information is: Interest Rate: 7.56% Term: 36 Months Monthly PMT: $350 Present Value: ? You can use the =PV() formula and input the other known values. One caveat is that you'll need to adjust the interest rate to account for the monthly compounding. So, the formula would be =PV(.0063,36,-350). This gives a result of $11,242, which is the amount you'd be able to borrow. [All of these can also be solved on the TI-84+, but I don't have my old calculator on me to walk through the steps] To calculate the total interest paid, you would then find out how much you'll be paying over the life of the loan. If your monthly payment is $350 for 36 months, the total amount you'd pay is $12,600 ($350*36). Subtract the $11,242 calculated in step one, and you are left with $1,358 worth of interest. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you want me to go over any of the steps in more detail. As a former finance student, I would highly recommend locking down the TVM functions, as they will pop up quite often throughout your schooling/career. Best of luck!"
}
] |
5178 | Formula that predicts whether one is better off investing or paying down debt | [
{
"docid": "111815",
"title": "",
"text": "Although I don't think you need to factor in risk tolerance to get the probabilities, I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will need to factor in risk tolerance in order to make a practical decision about what to do. In fact, I think that to make a practical decision you will need more than the specific probability you ask for you in the question; rather, you would like to see the complete probability distribution of possible outcomes. In other words, it's not enough to know that there is a 51% chance that investing will outperform paying down debt. You actually need to know much it outperforms when it does outperform, and how much it underperforms when it underperforms. As JoeTaxpayer's comment suggests, you might not choose to make an investment that had a 99% chance of outperforming debt payment by 1%, and a 1% chance of underperforming by 99%. I think it possible to address these questions by doing simulations. This can be done even with a spreadsheet, but more flexibly with simple programming. Essentially you can create some kind of probabilistic model of the various factors (e.g., chance that your investment will go up or down) and see what actually happens: how often you lose a lot of money, lose a little money, gain a little money, or gain a lot of money. Then based on that you can consult your inner spirit animal to decide whether the probability distribution of possible gains outweighs that of possible losses."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "176415",
"title": "",
"text": "In your case it's all going to come down to the rates and how long you expect to live in the new house: As for whether to pay down the student loans or the mortgage first, you'll need to compare the rates, and also adjust for the tax deduction you'll get on the mortgage interest. (You make too much money to deduct any of the student loan interest.) If the student loan and morgage rates are similar, then most likely you're going to be better off paying down the student loans first. As for 15 vs 30 year, typically the rates are better on the 15 year. If they were somehow the same, then you'd be better off with the 30 yr and making the equivalent payments to the 15 year simply so you have the choice of making a lower payment in the future if you ever want to. But generally, if you plan on always making the 15 year payment amount, then you would be better off going with the 15 year just to secure the lower rate. In your case though, sticking with the 30 year and throwing the difference at the student loan may actually benefit you even more, again due to the tax deduction of mortgage interest."
},
{
"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": "295861",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're able to pop this data into excel you can quickly calculate the solution. Every one of these problems boils down to 'Interest Rate', 'Term', 'Payment', 'Present Value', and 'Future Value' (FV will typically be zero). Excel has a formula to calculate any of these components based off of the other inputs. In this case, the given information is: Interest Rate: 7.56% Term: 36 Months Monthly PMT: $350 Present Value: ? You can use the =PV() formula and input the other known values. One caveat is that you'll need to adjust the interest rate to account for the monthly compounding. So, the formula would be =PV(.0063,36,-350). This gives a result of $11,242, which is the amount you'd be able to borrow. [All of these can also be solved on the TI-84+, but I don't have my old calculator on me to walk through the steps] To calculate the total interest paid, you would then find out how much you'll be paying over the life of the loan. If your monthly payment is $350 for 36 months, the total amount you'd pay is $12,600 ($350*36). Subtract the $11,242 calculated in step one, and you are left with $1,358 worth of interest. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you want me to go over any of the steps in more detail. As a former finance student, I would highly recommend locking down the TVM functions, as they will pop up quite often throughout your schooling/career. Best of luck!"
},
{
"docid": "44555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\""
},
{
"docid": "429153",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered. One is that you should buy the car with cash - always. Car debt is not usually considered \"\"good debt,\"\" as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate. Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it. On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car. In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone. Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment. Your personal comfort level may vary. Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car. Someone else took the hit on the \"\"drive it off the lot\"\" decline in price for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "283141",
"title": "",
"text": "\"At this stage, I would think about education. You can attend open houses, and often times real estate agents and bankers put on seminars for first time home buyers. Borrow books from the library and I would watch some HGTV. Many of the shows are entertaining and quite educational. Secondly you may want to get your finances in order. Make and stick to a budget. Start building a down payment and emergency fund. Pay down consumer debt/student loans. Picking up side work or overtime will help. You will look far more attractive to a lender if you go in with a large down payment and an emergency fund then someone with better credit scores and 100% financing. That is if the lender does manual underwriting. If not, then use a different lender. Once you get a budget figured out, how much of a down payment and emergency fund you need, and how much consumer debt to pay off, you can then predict when you will hit your goals. Then you will know when you are ready to buy. If it seems too far off, cut spending and work more if it is that important to you! You can make a prioritized list about what is most important features to you and your wife. I would wait on doing this until after you view some homes. Open houses are a great way to do this, but be careful not to get \"\"house fever\"\" and rush into a decision. You will get some encouragement to do so by the selling agents. After viewing some homes, and developing your list you can get an idea as of what the home will cost. This will further refine your budget, goals, and timeline. I think that is a lot of work to start.\""
},
{
"docid": "516387",
"title": "",
"text": "The other responses are correct in that financially, you should pay off the highest-interest-rate debt first, while paying the minimum on any lower-interest-rate debt to avoid any fees or penalties. However, there is one more trick you might consider: Unless you have the $20k available to pay the Discover debt immediately (and you say you have $9.5k so far), you could roll over your private debt over to a new card with a lower interest rate. It's pretty common to find balance transfers deals that charge a 3% transfer fee to have 0% APY for 1 year. If you are an organized person and are sure you won't forget to balance transfer again in the future, this would bring your private debt down to ~3%/year, and make your highest effective interest rate the $7.5k debt at 6%, and you could pay that down first. That's the extreme version, and requires you to set a calendar alert 10-11 months in the future. A less-extreme tactic would be to try to switch your private debt once to a lower rate - you probably could find a card with 0% APY for 1 year and then 7-8% afterwards, without continuing to balance transfer in the future. Then it would be closer to negligible which debt you chose to pay down first (between private and Perkins), and in that case I'd advocate finishing off the smaller debt entirely (because it would be the highest rate at that moment, and to feel good about knocking one off, and to reduce the number of fees and credit score hits if you ever took a vacation and was late on a monthly payment)."
},
{
"docid": "302448",
"title": "",
"text": "$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly."
},
{
"docid": "537783",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job."
},
{
"docid": "94373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to \"\"debt free\"\" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans. Ignore interest for the moment, and let's say that we are going to pay off the smallest loans first. When I eliminate these three loans, three of my monthly payments are also gone. Now let's say that with the money I was paying toward these eliminated debts, and some other money I was able to scrape together $500 a month that I want to use toward debt reduction. In four months, I've eliminated the last two $1k debts, and I'm down to 5 debts instead of 10. Achievement Unlocked! Instead of this strategy, I could have paid toward my largest interest rate. Let's say that was one of the $5k loans. I paid the $3k toward the bank to it, and because I still had all the monthly payments after that, I was only able to scrape together $400 a month extra toward debt reduction. In four months, I still have 10 debts. Now let's say that after these four months, I have a bad month, and some unexpected expenses come up. If I've eliminated 5 of my debts, my monthly payments are less, and I'll have an easier month then I would have had if I still had 10 monthly payments to deal with. Each time I eliminate a debt, the amount extra I have each month to tackle the remaining debts gets bigger. And if your goal is eliminating debt quickly, these early wins can really help motivate you on. It really feels like you are getting somewhere when your monthly bills go down. It also helps you with the debt free mindset. You start to see a future where you aren't sending payments to the banks each month. This method of paying your smaller debts first has been popularized in recent years by Dave Ramsey, and he calls it the debt snowball method. There might be other reasons why you would pick one debt over another to pay first. For example, let's say that one of your loans is with a bank that has terrible customer service. They don't send you bills on time, they process your payment late, their website stinks, they are a constant source of stress, and you are getting sick of them. That would be a great reason to pay that debt first, and never set foot in that bank again. In conclusion: If you have a constant amount of extra cash each month that you are going to use to reduce your debt, and this will never change, then, yes, you will save money over the long run by paying the highest interest debt first. However, if you are trying to eliminate your debt as fast as possible, and you are sacrificing in your budget, sending every extra penny you can scrape together toward debt reduction, the \"\"snowball\"\" method of knocking out the small debts first can help motivate you to continue to sacrifice toward your goal, and can also ease the cash flow situation in difficult months when you find yourself with less extra to send in.\""
},
{
"docid": "351312",
"title": "",
"text": "The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)"
},
{
"docid": "210939",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\""
},
{
"docid": "119416",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you misunderstand the purpose of the liability account. I would suggest you review the standard accounting model, but to give you a brief overview: Income and expenses are money coming into and out of your possession. They are the pipes flowing into and out of your \"\"box\"\". Inside your box, you have assets (bank, savings, cash, etc) and liabilities (credit cards, unpaid debts, etc). Money can flow into and out of either asset or liability accounts, for example: deposit a payment (income to asset), buy office supplies with cash (asset to expense), pay a bill with credit card (liability to expense), customer pays one of your debts directly (income to liability). Paying off a debt with an asset does not affect your overall net worth, so paying a check to your credit card bill (asset to liability) doesn't decrease your total balance, it merely moves the value from one bucket to another. Now to your question: Mandatory payments, such as taxes or insurance (or for that matter, utilities, rent, food- all things that \"\"must\"\" be bought occasionally) are not liabilities, instead they are all expenses. They might be paid FROM a liability account, if they are paid on credit for example, but the money still flows from liability to expense. In my own records I have Expense:Taxes and Expense:Insurance, with sub-accounts in each. Where the money comes from depends entirely on how I pay my bills, whether from cash or banks (asset) or whether it's a charge (liability). Sometimes you receive payments back from an insurance company. I find that rather than treating insurance premiums as a positive balance in a liability (with eventual payments as debits to the liability account), it is better to treat any payment from the insurance as income. Hope that helps!\""
},
{
"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": "306808",
"title": "",
"text": "It's pretty simple - the less money you owe the less interest you pay. Paying down debt gives a guaranteed return of the interest rate of the debt. So paying off your starter loan is equivalent to a 4% return. That's not a bad return in the current environment so it makes sense to do it unless you can find an investment which you think is likely to pay significantly better. (Note this is a general answer, not Netherlands-specific. There may be other considerations, around tax for example, which have to be factored into the calculation)."
},
{
"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": "415432",
"title": "",
"text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)"
},
{
"docid": "535793",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@jidugger mostly got it right. It basically mean that past performance of a stock, or a basket of stocks, are not at all useful when trying to predict its future. There is no proven correlation between past and future performance. If there was such a correlation, that was \"\"proven\"\" or known, then investors would quickly exploit this correlation by buying or selling this stock, thus nullifying the prediction. It doesn't mean the specific individuals cannot predict the future stock market - hell, if I set up 2^100 different robots, where every robots gives a different series of answers to the 100 questions \"\"how will stock X do Y days from now\"\" (for 1<=Y<=100), then one of those robots would be perfectly correct. The problem is that an outside observer has no way of knowing which of the predictor robots is right. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. To put it another way - you have $1000 now, and need to decide whether to invest in a particular stock, or a stock index. The \"\"memoryless\"\" property means that no matter how many earning reports you view ... by the time you see them, the stock price already accounts for them, so they're not useful to you. If the earning reports are positive, the stock is already \"\"too high\"\" because people bought it before you did. So on average, you can't use this information to predict the stock's future performance, and are better off investing in an index fund (unless you desire extra risk that doesn't come with more profitability).\""
},
{
"docid": "445655",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house."
}
] |
5178 | Formula that predicts whether one is better off investing or paying down debt | [
{
"docid": "393833",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "597376",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "286567",
"title": "",
"text": "I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors. The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person. For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice."
},
{
"docid": "253705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"US based so I don't know how closely this translates to the UK, but generally speaking there are three things that contribute to a strong credit score. Length/volume of credit history. This is a combination of how many accounts appear in your history along with how long they have been open. Having a series of accounts that were maintained in good standing looks better than only having one. Maintaining an account in good standing for a prolonged period (3+ years) is better than a bunch of short term items. \"\"Ideally\"\" your credit history should contain a mix of term loans that were paid per contract and a few (1?) revolving account that shows ongoing use. The goal is to show that you can handle ongoing obligations responsibly, and manage multiple things at the same time. Utilization. Or how much you currently owe vs how much people have agreed to lend you. Being close to your limits raises questions about whether or not you can really handle the additional debt. Having large availability raises questions about whether you would be able to handle it if you suddenly maxed things out. Finding the correct middle point can be challenging, the numbers I have seen thrown around most by the \"\"experts\"\" is 20-30% utilization. Recent Activity. Or how much new debt have you taken on? If someone is opening lots of new accounts it raises red flags. Shopping around for a deal on a auto loan or mortgage before settling on one is fine. Opening 5 new credit lines in the past 6 months, probably going to knock you down a bit. One of the concerns here is have you had the accounts long enough to demonstrate that you will be able to handle them in the long term. One route that was suggested to me in my early years was to go take out a 6mo loan from a bank, and just place the money in a CD while I made the payments. Then repeat with a longer term. Worst case, you can cash out the CD to pay off the loan in an emergency, but otherwise it helps show the type of history they are looking for. All that said, I have to agree with Pete B's answer. Don't play the credit game if you don't really need to. Or play it just enough to stay in the game and plan your finances to avoid relying on it. (Advice I wish I had taken long ago.)\""
},
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "516387",
"title": "",
"text": "The other responses are correct in that financially, you should pay off the highest-interest-rate debt first, while paying the minimum on any lower-interest-rate debt to avoid any fees or penalties. However, there is one more trick you might consider: Unless you have the $20k available to pay the Discover debt immediately (and you say you have $9.5k so far), you could roll over your private debt over to a new card with a lower interest rate. It's pretty common to find balance transfers deals that charge a 3% transfer fee to have 0% APY for 1 year. If you are an organized person and are sure you won't forget to balance transfer again in the future, this would bring your private debt down to ~3%/year, and make your highest effective interest rate the $7.5k debt at 6%, and you could pay that down first. That's the extreme version, and requires you to set a calendar alert 10-11 months in the future. A less-extreme tactic would be to try to switch your private debt once to a lower rate - you probably could find a card with 0% APY for 1 year and then 7-8% afterwards, without continuing to balance transfer in the future. Then it would be closer to negligible which debt you chose to pay down first (between private and Perkins), and in that case I'd advocate finishing off the smaller debt entirely (because it would be the highest rate at that moment, and to feel good about knocking one off, and to reduce the number of fees and credit score hits if you ever took a vacation and was late on a monthly payment)."
},
{
"docid": "415432",
"title": "",
"text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)"
},
{
"docid": "529229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\""
},
{
"docid": "82824",
"title": "",
"text": "You have a loan. You can probably assume you're going to have to repay that loan, every dollar. And every dollar that's outstanding on that loan costs you interest. So assuming you're not hit by any pre-payment penalty, any dollar that you pay down on your house right now saves you a compounded R% a year, where R is your mortgage rate. It doesn't really matter whether you're planning to sell it in a few years or not. If you pay $N, you'll save the interest + $N taken from the sale price and sent to the bank when you sell the house and move (though you might get a tax deduction on the interest). If you have a better place to park your money and earn a decent rate of return, it would be worth it to do that instead of paying down the mortgage. If you had another loan with higher interest rates, that's probably a better loan to pay off. If you can spend some of all of it on something that's actually genuinely worth R% of its purchase price a year (plus whatever the wear and tear takes away from its value, if anything) then spend it on that instead; that'd be a better investment. (For instance, investments in the stock market may offer better returns. However, that's risky! Observe that you can't lose money paying down your mortgage, and that Safety is usually relatively expensive these days, so it's not a bad deal. But if you're talking about using it for long-term retirement savings that are tax-advantaged to boot, that's another matter.) If you already have ample emergency funds and were just planning on putting the money into a savings account to rot at ~1.35% taxable interest, it's definitely worth it to pay down your balance now, unless you're about to sell (so the savings are slight) and it's a real inconvenience."
},
{
"docid": "135511",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I agree that cutting spending is generally a bad idea in a bad economy. However, we cannot sustain deficit spending forever. Our government has been spending money it doesn't have for decades. Now that we need spending to boost the economy, we've started to run out of ammunition. Years of stupid spending have caught up with us in the midst of a major depression. It's bad, but reality. So many people (including many people here on Reddit) have ideas that our debt-GDP ratio isn't a problem. Many people have pointed out that other countries have survived with much higher GDP ratios than ours. That is true, but we can't make that comparison based on that one variable. Those countries seemed to be on the brink of a major economic expansion as they conquered market shares in the global economy or developed new industries. As their economies started booming, they were able to pay down their debts. People argue that when our economy improves we can do the same. The problem is that after spending $5 trillion, we are still in a terribly stagnant economy after three years of recovery. How long do they think it is going to take before the recovery kicks in? It's inevitable that sooner or later we need to cut debts. Even if we do see a sudden economic rebound, the amount of debt it would take to get there would be extreme at this rate. That would require major cuts in spending which would send us right back where we started. Some people say that paying the debt is similar to paying down a mortgage. By those standards we are doing fine and it is more than affordable. That is a bad argument. For one thing, the revenue we generate in taxes is coming from economic growth developed by that spending. If you cut one, you cut the other. The way our economy is working right now, in order to generate more revenue to pay down the debt, we need to take on more debt. Also, unlike a mortgage, we are at the mercy of the financial markets. When investors decide that we have too much debt, the rates will rise or they stop buying altogether. Then we have to rely on the federal reserve to finance it, which can cause serious inflation. If we lose our reserve status (anyone who thinks this isn't possible is sadly delusional) then we are basically going to end up like Greece because we wouldn't be able to pay off our debts to foreign investors with our printing press. It's also important to note that America has a very big advantage it doesn't really deserve. We have the world reserve currency. People say that we deserve to have that because our economy is stronger. That is circular logic, because so much of our economic strength is due to the fact we had the reserve currency in the first place. Where would we be without it? Would we still be the strongest economy in the world? I think that's an impossible question to answer, because we have had it and given a free pass for so long that we don't know what life would be like. We can sit and chastise Europe for not doing as well as us, but the truth is we have a huge advantage so it's not a valid comparison. Also, we may be doing better for now. But if our sovereign debt bubble bursts (either due to the loss of world reserve currency status or otherwise) we won't be any better off. I don't believe in austerity in a depression, but this unsustainable deficit spending seems equally reckless. I think we need a more strategic plan that rests somewhere in the middle ground. Cutting spending on wasteful projects and redirecting that money into areas that are going to have a high return on investment in the form of GDP growth. Obama's roads don't qualify. Otherwise, if we keep wasting money we will someday reach the point where deficit spending is no longer an option and we have to cut it regardless of how stagnant the economy is. That would be really bad and we need to change gears before we reach that tipping point. To answer your question, I think the people you speak of are wrong, but not stupid. They certainly have good points. The problem is that everyone looks at it as an \"\"either/or\"\" situation rather than seeing a continuum where the real answer may lie somewhere in the middle.\""
},
{
"docid": "571694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Don't use a \"\"credit repair\"\" agency. They are scams. One of the myriad of ways in which they work is by setting you up with a bogus loan, which they will dutifully report you as paying on time. They'll pretend to be a used car dealer or some other credit-based merchant. For a time, this will actually work. This is called \"\"false reporting.\"\" The problem is, the data clearinghouses are not stupid and eventually realize some hole-in-the-wall \"\"car dealer\"\" with no cars on the lot (yes, they do physical inspections as part of the credentialing process, just sometimes they're a little slow about it) is reporting trade lines worth millions of dollars per year. It's a major problem in the industry. But eventually that business loses its fraudulent reporting ability, those trade lines get revoked, and your account gets flagged for a fraud investigation. The repair agency has your money, and you still don't have good credit. Bad news if this all goes down while you're trying to close on a house. You're better off trying to settle your debts (usually for 50%) or declaring bankruptcy altogether. The latter isn't so bad if you're in a stable home, because you won't be able to get an apartment for a while, credit cards or a good deal on auto financing. ED: I just saw what one agency was charging, and can tell you declaring bankruptcy costs only a few hundred dollars more than the repair agency and is 100% guaranteed to get you predictable results as long as you name all your debts up front and aren't getting reamed by student loans. And considering you can't stomach creditors-- well guess what, now you'll have a lawyer to deal with them for you. Anything you accomplish through an agency will eventually be reversed because it's fraudulent. But through bankruptcy, your credit will start improving within two years, the tradeoff being that you won't be able to get a mortgage (at all) or apartment (easily) during that time-- so find a place to hunker down for a few years before you declare.\""
},
{
"docid": "569628",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\""
},
{
"docid": "262772",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't recommend paying off the debts. Both are low-interest tax-deductible loans that you've been handling well enough to have significant savings, and you can likely earn a higher interest rate by investing than you could by paying down the debt. Putting your money into vanguard ETFs or a betterment account will likely be better in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "136047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""
},
{
"docid": "572272",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the interest rate on the student loan is lower than inflation, then the student loan will be \"\"cheaper\"\" the longer you take to pay it. This is now a very rare instance, but there were programs and loan consolidation opportunities in the mid-200x's that allowed savvy student's to convert their loans to have an interest rate of around 1.5%. Right now the inflation rate is actually quite low, but it's not expected to stay there, and wasn't that low just a few years ago, so in the long run this type of debt will only be cheaper the longer it takes to pay off. It is risky, as others point out, as it can't be written off in bankruptcy, but there are other situations where it can be written off more easily than other debts, so on balance the risks aren't better or worse than other loans in general. For specific individual situations the risk equation might work out differently, though. Further, student loans aren't considered traditional debt by some lenders for specific lending opportunities, thus allowing you to go into greater debt for certain types of purchases. Whether this is good for you or not depends on the importance of the purchase. If you need to buy a house and the interest rate is higher than your student loan rate, it will be better, financially, to pay off the house first, while paying the minimum on the student loans. If you have no other debt with a higher interest, and the student loan interest is higher than inflation, there is no reason to delay paying off the student loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "210939",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\""
},
{
"docid": "572888",
"title": "",
"text": "For the sake of sanity, pay off your debt maybe not all but some part of it. You never know what the monster, the stock market may turn out to be. It may gobble up all your money without belching or it may gift you with a bounty. But if you pay off all your debt and the stock market monster is rewarding everybody else, you may rue your decision. So put some part of it the markets too, but a more safer one would be a good bet. The proportions of money for loan repayment and for investing in markets is your decision, after you evaluate all your future predictions."
},
{
"docid": "377742",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't say your level of consumer debt. You don't say how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have debt, pay it off before you invest. If you don't have an emergency fund (X months' expenses, pick your own X) get that before investing. If you have neither, get a small emergency fund, and then throw as much as you can to getting rid of debt. Beyond that, look for prudent investments. They're not the same as conservative investments. To know what's prudent, learn about the ones you listed and what determines their prices. Learn how or why they go up or down in value."
},
{
"docid": "282376",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I think I'll clear off some confusion in the topic. The Sterling Ratio is a very simple investment portfolio measurement that fits nicely to the topic of personal finance, although not so much to a foreign exchange trading system. The Sterling Ratio is mainly used in the context of hedge funds to measure its risk-reward ratio for long term investments. To do so, it has been adapted to the following in order to appear more like the Sharpe Ratio: I Suppose this is why you question the Average Largest Draw-down. I'll come back to that later. It's original definition, suggested by the company Deane Sterling Jones, is a little different and perhaps the one you should use if you want to measure your trading system's long term risk-reward ratio, which is as followed: Note: Average Annual Draw-down has to be negative on the above-mentioned formula. This one is very simple to calculate and the one to use if you want to measure any portfolio's long-term results, such an example of a 5 or 10 years period and calculate the average of each years largest drawdown. To answer @Dheer's comment, this specific measurement can also be used in personal investments portfolio, which is considered a topic related to personal finance. Back to the first one, which answers your question. It's used in most cases in investment strategies, such as hedging, not trading systems. By hedging I mean that in these cases long term investments are made in anti-correlated securities to obtain a diversified portfolio with a very stable growth. This one is calculated normally annually because you rely on the Annual Risk-Free Rate. Having that in mind I think you can guess that the Average Largest Drawdown is the average between the Largest/Maximum Drawdown from each security in the portfolio. And this doesn't make sense in a trading system. Example: If you have invested in 5 different securities where we calculated the Largest Draw-down for each, such as represented in the following array: MaxDD[5] = { 0.12, 0.23, 0.06, 0.36, 0.09 }, in this case your Average Largest Draw-down is the average(MaxDD) that equals 0.172 or 17,2% If your portfolio's annual return is 15% and the Risk-free Rate is 10%, your Sterling Ratio SR = (0.15 - 0.10)/0.172, which result to 0.29. The higher the rate better is the risk-reward ratio of your portfolio. I suggest in your case to only use the original Sterling Ratio to calculate your long-term risk-reward, in any other case I suggest looking at the Sharpe and Sortino ratios instead."
}
] |
5178 | Formula that predicts whether one is better off investing or paying down debt | [
{
"docid": "39819",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "551423",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\""
},
{
"docid": "572888",
"title": "",
"text": "For the sake of sanity, pay off your debt maybe not all but some part of it. You never know what the monster, the stock market may turn out to be. It may gobble up all your money without belching or it may gift you with a bounty. But if you pay off all your debt and the stock market monster is rewarding everybody else, you may rue your decision. So put some part of it the markets too, but a more safer one would be a good bet. The proportions of money for loan repayment and for investing in markets is your decision, after you evaluate all your future predictions."
},
{
"docid": "451457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "245198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I listened to about 15 minutes of the video, but then I read your other link, which gives a much better summary. This guy is an idiot. Just consider this statement: \"\"If everyone was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget.\"\" This is true to some extent. It wouldn't be enough to balance the federal budget in one year. Experts often cite things like debt to GDP to show that a country's debt is ballooning, but they don't mention this obvious fact: We don't have to pay off our debts in a single year. Nobody does. Debt to GDP is a ratio and not the end all be all. Reinhart & Rogoff wrote a paper about how countries with high debt to GDP tend to have slower economic growth, but they don't mention that this occurs at every stage of debt growth. See Debt & Delusion by Dr. Robert Shiller for a great article on this subject. The daily kos article goes over most of the points I would make, but let me generalize a little: Always be wary of doomsday-predictors and free advice. This guy talks about correctly calling Fannie and Freddie. Even if he's right, why is he mentioning it? If he's such a good accountant and financial expert, surely he could've seen the tech bubble before the housing bubble right? It took a lot of analysis to figure out that CDO's were junk - anybody with the ability to read a balance sheet could see that many tech companies were overvalued. Every now and then, you get one hit wonders. They might never be right again, but they have the \"\"credentials.\"\" If these people were really that good, they wouldn't be selling investment newsletters. They'd be applying their strategies and getting rich. Buffett has been getting rich for over 50 years, and he's not publishing newsletters with \"\"secret, genius\"\" strategies. He's made it pretty clear what his philosophy is, and anyone who follows it patiently will make money. Stransberry's argument only makes sense if you agree with the assumptions. The US will implode if nobody accepts our money. Nobody will accept our money if we're no longer the reserve currency or hyperinflation occurs or something like that. People have been predicting doom after every bubble, but that doesn't make it true. Some of his points (like the fact that we have too much debt) are valid, and I predict that the world will go into a period of deleveraging now. Nonetheless, the whole \"\"we will implode\"\" story is a scary picture, but it's just that - a picture.\""
},
{
"docid": "386437",
"title": "",
"text": "If the cash flow information is complete, the valuation can be determined with relative accuracy and precision. Assuming the monthly rent is correct, the annual revenue is $1,600 per year, $250/mo * 12 months - $1,400/year in taxes. Real estate is best valued as a perpetuity where P is the price, i is the income, and r is the rate of interest. Theoreticians would suggest that the best available rate of interest would be the risk free rate, a 30 year Treasury rate ~3.5%, but the competition can't get these rates, so it is probably unrealistic. Anways, aassuming no expenses, the value of the property is $1,600 / 0.035 at most, $45,714.29. This is the general formula, and it should definitely be adjusted for expenses and a more realistic interest rate. Now, with a better understanding of interest rates and expenses, this will predict the most likely market value; however, it should be known that whatever interest rate is applied to the formula will be the most likely rate of return received from the investment. A Graham-Buffett value investor would suggest using a valuation no less than 15% since to a value investor, there's no point in bidding unless if the profits can be above average, ~7.5%. With a 15% interest rate and no expenses, $1,600 / .15, is $10,666.67. On average, it is unlikely that a bid this low will be successful; nevertheless, if multiple bids are placed using this similar methodology, by the law of small numbers, it is likely to hit the lottery on at most one bid."
},
{
"docid": "439459",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off the debt is low-risk, low-reward. You're effectively guaranteed a 4% return. If you buy a mutual fund, you're going to have to take some risk to have a decent chance of getting better than 4% and change return in the long run, which probably means a fund that invests primarily in stocks. Buying a stock mutual fund is high-risk, high reward, especially when you're in significant debt. On the other hand, 4% and change is very low-interest. If you wanted to buy stocks on margin, financing stock investments directly with debt, you'd pay a heck of a lot more. Bottom line: It comes down to your personal risk tolerance."
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "306808",
"title": "",
"text": "It's pretty simple - the less money you owe the less interest you pay. Paying down debt gives a guaranteed return of the interest rate of the debt. So paying off your starter loan is equivalent to a 4% return. That's not a bad return in the current environment so it makes sense to do it unless you can find an investment which you think is likely to pay significantly better. (Note this is a general answer, not Netherlands-specific. There may be other considerations, around tax for example, which have to be factored into the calculation)."
},
{
"docid": "302448",
"title": "",
"text": "$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly."
},
{
"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": "329527",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works. The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that? There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible. As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market? It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices."
},
{
"docid": "586626",
"title": "",
"text": "You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "571694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Don't use a \"\"credit repair\"\" agency. They are scams. One of the myriad of ways in which they work is by setting you up with a bogus loan, which they will dutifully report you as paying on time. They'll pretend to be a used car dealer or some other credit-based merchant. For a time, this will actually work. This is called \"\"false reporting.\"\" The problem is, the data clearinghouses are not stupid and eventually realize some hole-in-the-wall \"\"car dealer\"\" with no cars on the lot (yes, they do physical inspections as part of the credentialing process, just sometimes they're a little slow about it) is reporting trade lines worth millions of dollars per year. It's a major problem in the industry. But eventually that business loses its fraudulent reporting ability, those trade lines get revoked, and your account gets flagged for a fraud investigation. The repair agency has your money, and you still don't have good credit. Bad news if this all goes down while you're trying to close on a house. You're better off trying to settle your debts (usually for 50%) or declaring bankruptcy altogether. The latter isn't so bad if you're in a stable home, because you won't be able to get an apartment for a while, credit cards or a good deal on auto financing. ED: I just saw what one agency was charging, and can tell you declaring bankruptcy costs only a few hundred dollars more than the repair agency and is 100% guaranteed to get you predictable results as long as you name all your debts up front and aren't getting reamed by student loans. And considering you can't stomach creditors-- well guess what, now you'll have a lawyer to deal with them for you. Anything you accomplish through an agency will eventually be reversed because it's fraudulent. But through bankruptcy, your credit will start improving within two years, the tradeoff being that you won't be able to get a mortgage (at all) or apartment (easily) during that time-- so find a place to hunker down for a few years before you declare.\""
},
{
"docid": "427206",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money."
},
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"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": "473865",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Respectfully, I am of the opinion that you are mixing issues. Paying a mortgage off early vs investing is a question that's been well discussed at Money.SE. If you project a higher tax adjusted return on the investments than your current mortgage rate, invest. Else, pay the mortgage down. If the rent covers the mortgage, you can maintain the investing. It doesn't matter for this discussion if the rent produces a profit, so long as all expenses are covered. Renting aside, in the US, now, my mortgage is 3.5%. 2.6% after taxes. So long as I expect a return well above this level long term, I'll stay investing, and let the mortgage die its slow death. Another decade or so. I'm sorry I can offer a formula, it's \"\"less\"\" \"\"about the same\"\" or \"\"more.\"\" The mortgage is fixed, right? But the market return is unknown.\""
},
{
"docid": "566337",
"title": "",
"text": "Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise."
},
{
"docid": "154181",
"title": "",
"text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner."
}
] |
5185 | Invest in low cost small cap index funds when saving towards retirement? | [
{
"docid": "210236",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "99987",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\""
},
{
"docid": "589088",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\""
},
{
"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": "580963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the other answers raise good points. But to your question, \"\"How do I find an honest financial adviser\"\" ask your friends and family. See who they talk to and confide in. Go meet that person, understand what they do and how they view things and if you gel, great. Honesty and strong ethics exist in individuals regardless of laws. What is it you're trying to accomplish? You just have some money you want to put aside? You want to save for something? You want to start a budget or savings plan? Your first step may be talking to a tax person, not an investment adviser. Sometimes the most significant returns are generated when you simply retain more of your earnings and tax people know how to accomplish that. You're just graduating university, you're just going to get your first job. You don't need to hunt for the right heavy hitter 30% gains generating financial adviser. You need to establish your financial foundation. Crawl, walk, then run. There are some basics (that transcend international borders). If you don't know much about investing, most (if not all) retirement and individual brokerage type accounts will give you access to some kind of market index fund. You don't need to multinationally diversify in to high fee funds because \"\"emerging markets are screaming right now.\"\" Typically, over a few years the fees you pay in the more exotic asset classes will eat up the gains you've made compared to a very low fee market index fund. You can open free accounts at a number of financial institutions. These free accounts at these banks all have a list of zero commission zero load funds, all have something resembling an index fund. You can open your account for free, deposit your money for free, and buy shares in an index fund for free.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "520963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "477646",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\""
},
{
"docid": "154229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\""
},
{
"docid": "541054",
"title": "",
"text": "Keep it simple: mutual funds (preferably index, low fee or ETF linked funds) do make a nice start for your little princess college fund. You dont need a real fortune to offset the trading cost of an online broker but if your really going to take advantage of dollar cost averaging, you might want to invest into a trusted fund company. Do your research, it is worth it. Ignore what the investment salesman is saying, he works for his wealth, not yours. A good DIY strategy, either joint with your own retirement account agregate or on a low cost index fund will make wonders. Keep in mind to be resilient: you will cash out when the princess will be in college in 20 yerars. Make sure to make proper time horizon investment and allocation. Cheers, All the best. Feel free to edit"
},
{
"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": "25817",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\""
},
{
"docid": "549364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\""
},
{
"docid": "327925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "473427",
"title": "",
"text": "I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment."
},
{
"docid": "11230",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an \"\"investment\"\"; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to \"\"appreciate\"\" in the future because they are \"\"undervalued\"\" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return.\""
},
{
"docid": "451501",
"title": "",
"text": "Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? I'm going to concentrate on this question, particularly the first half. Net income $4500 per month (I'm taking this to be after taxes; correct me if wrong). Rent is $1600 and other expenses are up to $800. So let's call that $2500. That leaves you $2000 a month, which is $24,000 a year. You can contribute up to $18,000 a year to a 401k and if you want to maintain your income in retirement, you probably should. The average social security payment now is under $1200. You have an above average income but not a maximum income. So let's set that at $1500. You need an additional income stream of $900 a month in retirement plus enough to cover taxes. Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth). That's $23,500. That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes. Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth). That's $23,500. That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes. You are basically even. Your income is just about what you need to cover expenses and retirement. You could cover a monthly mortgage payment of $1600 and have a $100,000 down payment. That probably gets you around a $350,000 house, although check property taxes. They have to come out of the $1600 a month. That doesn't seem like a lot for a Bay area house even if it would buy a mansion in rural Mississippi. Perhaps think condo instead. Try to keep at least $15,000 to $27,000 as emergency savings. If you lose your job or get stuck with a required expense (e.g. a major house repair), you'll need that money. You don't have enough income to support a car unless it saves you money somewhere. $500 a year is probably not going to cover insurance, parking, gas, and maintenance. It's possible that you could tighten up your expenses, but in my experience, people are more likely to underestimate their expenses than overestimate. That's why I'm saying $2500 (a little above the high end) rather than $2000 (your low end estimate). If things are stable, wait a year and evaluate. Track your actual spending. Ask yourself if you made any large purchases. Your budget should include an appliance (TV, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc.) a year. If you're not paying for that now (included in rent?), then you need to allow for it in your ownership budget. I do not consider an ESPP to be a reliable investment vehicle. Consider the Enron possibility. You wake up one day and find out that there is no actual money. Your stock is now worthless. A diversified portfolio can survive this. If you lose your job and your investment, you'll be stuck with just your savings. Hopefully you didn't just tie them up in a house that you might have to sell to take your next job in a different location. An ESPP might work as savings for the house. If something goes wrong, don't buy the house. But it's not retirement or emergency savings. I would say that you are OK but could be better. Get your retirement savings started. That does two things. One, it gives you money for retirement. Two, it keeps you from having extra money now when it is easy to develop expensive habits. An abrupt drop from $4500 in spending to $1200 will hurt. A smooth transition from $2500 to $2500 is what you would like to see. You are behind now, but you have the opportunity to catch up for a few years. Work out how much you'll get from Social Security and how much you need to cover your typical expenses with the occasional emergency. Expect high health care costs in retirement. Medicare covers a lot but not everything, and health care is only getting more expensive. Don't forget to assume higher taxes in the future to help cover that expense and the existing debt. After a few years of catch up contributions, work out your long term plan assuming a reasonable real (after inflation) rate of return. If you can reduce the $23,500 in retirement contributions then, that's OK. But be pessimistic. Most people overestimate good things and underestimate bad things. It's much better to have extra than not enough. A 401k comes with an administrator and your choice of mutual funds. Try for diversification. Some money in bonds (25% to 30%). The remainder in stocks. Look for index funds. Try for a mix of value and growth, as they'll do better at different times. As you approach retirement, you can convert some of that into shorter term, lower yield investments. The rough rule of thumb is to have two to five years of withdrawals in short term investments like money market funds. But that's more than twenty years off. You have more choices with an IRA. In particular, you can choose your own administrator. But I'd keep the same stock/bond mix and stick to index funds if you're not interested in researching the more complex options. You may want to invest your IRA in a growth fund and your 401k in value funds and bonds. Then balance the stock/bond mix across both. When you invest each year, look at the underrepresented funds and add the most to them. So if bonds had a bad year and didn't keep pace, invest in bonds. They're probably cheap. You don't want to rebalance frequently, but once a year might be a good pace. That's about how often you should invest in an IRA, so that can be a good time. I'll let the others answer on the financial advisor part."
},
{
"docid": "8012",
"title": "",
"text": "It is worth noting first that interest and short-term dividends/capital gains are all taxed at the same rate. So all the investments below I mention (even savings accounts) will be taxed at the same rate. Also, even short-term capital losses can often be harvested to reduce your tax rate in many countries. While it is worth paying attention to the taxes when investing in the short term the more important factor is how much risk that you can take or want to take with the money. Most equity portfolios like the S&P index give a much higher risk that there will be much less in the account when you need to buy. You generally have a higher expected return with equity but as you mention that return is very random over such a short period. Over such a short variable period many people will invest in short term bond-index funds or just keep the fund in a high-yielding savings account. With the savings account your money is guaranteed. Short term bond funds will have generally higher yields but a small chance you may lose money in the short term. Some people can trade short-term bond indices for free with their broker but if you can't be sure to include the trading costs when thinking about which investment to use as with how low yields are currently the fees may eat up any advantage you gain."
},
{
"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:"
}
] |
5185 | Invest in low cost small cap index funds when saving towards retirement? | [
{
"docid": "317354",
"title": "",
"text": "You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "591909",
"title": "",
"text": "As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck."
},
{
"docid": "553288",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal."
},
{
"docid": "520963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "70702",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might want to consider whether you want to have a financial planner at all. Would a large mutual fund company or brokerage serve your needs better than a bank? You are still quite young and so have been contributing to IRAs for only a few years. Also, the wording in your question suggests that your IRA investments have not done spectacularly well, and so it is reasonable to infer that your IRA is not a large amount, or at least not as large as what it would be 30 years from now. At this level of investment, it would be difficult for you to find a financial planner who spends all that much time looking after your interests. That you should get away from your current planner, presumably a mid-level employee in what is typically called the trust division of the bank, is a given. But, to go to another bank (or even to a different employee in the same bank), where you will also likely be nudged towards investing your IRA in CDs, annuities, and a few mutual funds with substantial sales charges and substantial annual expense fees, might just take you from the frying pan into the fire. You might want to consider transferring your IRA to a large mutual fund company and investing it in something simple like one of their low-cost (meaning small annual expense ratio) index funds. The Couch Potato portfolio suggests equal amounts invested in a no-load S&P 500 Index fund and a no-load Bond Index fund, or a 75%-25% split favoring the stock index fund (in view of your age and the fact that the IRA should be a long-term investment). But the point is, you can open an IRA account, have the money transferred from your IRA account with the bank, and make the investments on-line all by yourself instead of having a financial advisor do it on your behalf and charge you a fee for doing so (not to mention possibly screwing it up.) You can set up Automated Investment too; the mutual fund company will gladly withdraw money from your checking account and invest it in whatever fund(s) you choose. All this is not complicated at all. If you would like to follow the Couch Potato strategy and rebalance your portfolio once a year, you can do it by yourself too. If you want to invest in funds other than the S&P 500 Index fund, etc. most mutual fund companies offer a \"\"portfolio analysis\"\" and advice for a fee (and the fee is usually waived when the assets increase above certain levels - varies from company to company). You could thus have a portfolio analysis done each year, and hopefully it will be free after a few more years. Indeed, at that level, you also typically get one person assigned as your advisor, just as you have with a bank. Once you get the recommendations, you can choose to follow them or not, but you have control over how and where your IRA assets are invested. Over the years, as your IRA assets grow, you can branch out into investments other than \"\"staid\"\" index funds, but right now, having a financial planner for your IRA might not be worth it. Later, when you have more assets, by all means if you want to explore investing in specific stocks with a brokerage instead of sticking to mutual funds only but this might also mean phone calls urging you to sell Stock A right now, or buy hot Stock B today etc. So, one way of improving your interactions and have a better experience with your new financial planner is to not have a planner at all for a few years and do some of the work yourself.\""
},
{
"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": "357200",
"title": "",
"text": "Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI. The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back. In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet."
},
{
"docid": "473427",
"title": "",
"text": "I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment."
},
{
"docid": "332719",
"title": "",
"text": "I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks."
},
{
"docid": "160170",
"title": "",
"text": "What explains the most of the future returns of a portfolio is the allocation between asset classes. In the long term, stock investments are almost certain to return more than any other kinds of investments. For 40+ years, I would choose a portfolio of 100% stocks. How to construct the portfolio, then? Diversification is the key. You should diversify in time (don't put a large sum of money into your stock portfolio immediately; if you have a large sum to invest, spread it around several years). You should diversify based on company size (invest in both large and small companies). You should also diversify internationally (don't invest in just US companies). If you prefer to pick individual stocks, 20 very carefully selected stocks may provide enough diversification if you keep diversification in mind during stock picking. However, careful stock picking cannot be expected to yield excess returns, and if you pick stocks manually, you need to rebalance your portfolio occasionally. Thus, if you're lazy, I would recommend a mutual fund, or many mutual funds if you have difficulty finding a low-cost one that is internationally diversified. The most important consideration is the cost. You cannot expect careful fund selection to yield excess returns before expenses. However, the expenses are certain costs, so prefer low-cost funds. Almost always this means picking index funds. Avoid funds that have a small number of stocks, because they typically invest only in the largest companies, which means you fail to get diversification in company size. So, instead of Euro STOXX 50, select STOXX 600 when investing to the European market. ETFs may have lower costs than traditional mutual funds, so keep ETFs in mind when selecting the mutual funds in which to invest. For international diversification, do not forget emerging markets. It is not excessive to invest e.g. 20% to emerging markets. Emerging markets have a higher risk but they also have a higher return. A portfolio that does not include emerging markets is not in my opinion well diversified. When getting close to retirement age, I would consider increasing the percentage of bonds in the portfolio. This should be done primarily by putting additional money to bonds instead of selling existing investments to avoid additional taxes (not sure if this applies to other taxation systems than the Finnish one). Bond investments are best made though low-cost mutual funds as well. Keep bond investments in your local currency and risk-free assets (i.e. select US government bonds). Whatever you do, remember that historical return is no guarantee of future return. Actually, the opposite may be true: there is a mean reversion law. If a particular investment has returned well in the past, it often means its price has gone up, making it more likely that the price goes down in the future. So don't select a fund based on its historical return; instead, select a fund based on low costs. However, I'm 99% certain that over a period of 40 years, stocks will return better than other investments. In addition to fund costs, taxes are the other certain thing that will be deducted from your returns. Research what options you have to reduce the taxes you need to pay. 401-K was explained in another answer; this may be a good option. Some things recommended in other answers that I would avoid:"
},
{
"docid": "90009",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on your home purchase. The more equity you build in your house, the more of the sale price you get out of it when you move to your next house. This will enable you to consume more house in the future. Think of it as making early payments towards your next down payment. Another option is to save up a chunk of money and recast your mortgage, paying down the principal and having the resulting amount re-amortized to provide you with a lower monthly payment. You may be able to do this at least once during your time in the house, and if you do it early enough it can potentially help your savings in other areas. On the other hand, it is possible given today's low interest rates for mortgages that in other forms of investments (such as index funds) you could make more on the money you'd be putting towards your extra payments. Then you would have more money in savings when you go to sell this house and buy the next one that you would in equity if you didn't go that route. This is riskier than building equity in your home, but potentially has a bigger pay-off. You do the trade-offs."
},
{
"docid": "277174",
"title": "",
"text": "What's the best strategy? Buy low and sell high. Now. A lot of people try to do this. A few are successful, but for the most part, people who try to time the market end up worse. A far more successful strategy is to save over your entire lifetime, put the money into a very low-cost market fund, and just let the average performance take you to retirement. Put another way, if you think that there is an obvious, no-fail, double-your-money-due-to-a-correction strategy, you're wrong. Otherwise everyone would do it. And someone who tells you that there is such a strategy almost surely will be trying to separate you from a good amount of your money. In the end, $80K isn't a life-altering, never-have-to-work-again amount of money. What I think you ought to do with it is: pay off any credit card debts you may have, pay a significant chunk of student loan or other personal loan debts you may have, make sure you have a decent emergency fund set aside, and then put the rest into diversified low-cost mutual funds. Think of it as a nice leg-up towards your retirement."
},
{
"docid": "505993",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table."
},
{
"docid": "78837",
"title": "",
"text": "The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way."
},
{
"docid": "90858",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\""
},
{
"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": "220486",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\""
},
{
"docid": "99987",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\""
},
{
"docid": "154229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\""
},
{
"docid": "157414",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage."
}
] |
5196 | I might use a credit card convenience check. What should I consider? | [
{
"docid": "172128",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Read the terms carefully. With promotional offers, if you do anything \"\"bad\"\", the promotion is terminated and you immediately revert to either your normal rate or a penalty rate. \"\"Bad\"\" includes things like: making a late payment, going over your limit, paying less than the minimum payment, etc. I wouldn't sweat the potential credit score impacts. These promotions are pretty much the best deals that you can get for an unsecured loan.\""
}
] | [
{
"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": "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": "423569",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck."
},
{
"docid": "549665",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would a lender for a down payment want proof of income for a house when a credit card issuer gave me more and doesn't care? The risk profile and rate of interest are different. Could I use this argument as a basis that they have no reasoning to request proof of income, if another lender (credit card company) would give me more without proof of repayment? You could argue anything, but it does not mean the other company will agree with your argument. Should I borrow a home loan from a credit card company then? Or what's the catch here? You can. Check the rate of interest and penal fees; you would realize how much you will end up paying. Depending on the country, the difference could be in the region of 10-15%."
},
{
"docid": "11082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have what is called in the biz a \"\"thin file\"\". Check with a Credit Union. They will get you a secured card or maybe a straight credit card. They usually will graduate you from a secured card to a real credit card in 12-18 months. Then you are on your way. You should also sign up for Creditkarma to get your credit report updated every week. They make their money on referring people to credit card companies so you might be able to kill two birds with one stone.\""
},
{
"docid": "171339",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One of the factors of a credit score is the \"\"length of time revolving accounts have been established\"\". Having a credit card with any line of credit will help in this regard. The account will age regardless of your use or utilization. If you are having issues with credit limits and no credit history, you may have trouble getting financing for the purchase. You should be sure you're approved for financing, and not just that the financing option is \"\"available\"\" (potentially with the caveat of \"\"for well qualified borrowers\"\"). Generally, if you've gotten approved for financing, that will come in the form of another credit card account (many contracting and plumbing companies will do this in hopes you will use the card for future purchases) or a bank loan account (more common for auto and home loans). With the credit card account, you might be able to perform a balance transfer, but there are usually fees associated with that. For bank loan accounts, you probably can't pay that off with a credit card. You'll need to transfer money to the account via ACH or send in a check. In short: I wouldn't bet on paying with your current credit card to get any benefit. IANAL. Utilizing promotional offers, whether interest-free for __ months, no balance transfer fees, or whatever, and passing your debt around is not illegal, not fraudulent, and in many cases advised (this is a link), though that is more for people to distribute utilization across multiple cards, and to minimize interest accrued. Many people, myself included, use a credit card for purchasing EVERYTHING, then pay it off in full every month (or sometimes immediately) to reap the benefit of cash back rewards and other cardholder benefits. I've also made a major payment (tuition, actually) on a Discover card, and opened up a new Visa card with 18-months of no interest and no balance transfer fees to let the bill sit for 12 months while I finished school and got a job.\""
},
{
"docid": "451453",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A retail revolving account is essentially a credit card offered by a store (or chain of stores) and usable only at that store. In my area, the Sears department store's \"\"Sears card\"\" would be a good example. Stores offer these to capture a bit more profit from the transaction. They don't have to pay someone else's processing fees, and they get to keep any interest you pay. Of course they also accept the costs that go along with retail lending. It operates just like any other revolving-credit card. Read the fine print of the agreement to see what the grace period is, if any, and what APR they're charging after that. These cards also serve as a marketing tool. Some stores don't accept any other card. Some can do \"\"instant approvals\"\" to encourage you to make a large purchase now rather than continuing to shop around. Some may offer special deals only if you use their card -- I paid 0% interest for a year on my refrigerator, which was convenient for me. And so on. Gasoline stations also used to offer their own cards... though these days it's common for them to offer a branded version of one of the major credit cards instead.\""
},
{
"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": "393866",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "204478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5% I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true \"\"drag\"\" credit card debt payments really have on your life. I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either.\""
},
{
"docid": "179679",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some very general advice. Lifestyle borrowing is almost always a bad idea. You should limit your borrowing to where it is an investment decision or where it is necessary and avoid it when it is a lifestyle choice. For example, many people need to borrow to have a car/house/education or go without. Also, if you are unemployed for a long period of time and can't find work, charging up the credit cards seems very reasonable. However, for things like entertainment, travel, and other nice-to-haves can easily become a road to crushing debt. If you don't have the cash for these types of things, my suggestion is to put off the purchase until you do. Note: I am not including credit cards that you pay off in full at the end of the month or credit used as a convenience as \"\"borrowing\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "217030",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were \"\"free\"\" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour.\""
},
{
"docid": "219033",
"title": "",
"text": "It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "444543",
"title": "",
"text": "Debit cards can be riskier than credit cards. That's why I personally avoid debit cards unless I have a very good reason to go that direction (e.g. HSA accounts). To explain the risk, consider what happens if someone steals the card or number and starts using it: Credit card: You get a big bill, which you dispute and eventually get dismissed. Debit card: Your bank account balance drops, you don't have access to cash, and your checks start bouncing and you rack up bounced check charges with your bank and stores where you write checks. Eventually, you convince the bank it was fraud and they refund the money to your account. The big difference is that while it is going on you are out the money with a debit card, and with a credit card the BANK is out the money. The above scenario happened to my brother and it wasn't pretty. He was having to borrow money to pay his rent and groceries while the bank sorted it out."
},
{
"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": "402543",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need a credit card anymore than you need a TV or a car. There might be many circumstances where a credit card is a convenience, there might be things you give up because you don't have a credit card. There are even some upsides to a well managed card account. But no, you don't need it."
},
{
"docid": "524149",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\""
},
{
"docid": "11936",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\""
}
] |
5196 | I might use a credit card convenience check. What should I consider? | [
{
"docid": "565745",
"title": "",
"text": "I tried this a few months ago when I got one from Chase for 0%. Thought it might be fun to play with, maybe make some money with the interest elsewhere over the 6 months. Read the term and called Chase for more information on these and didn't see any issues at first. The big thing that got me was that the rest of my account (not the money from the convenience check) was converted so that interests accrued on a daily basis even if you paid it all off at the end of the month. So even though I was making the required payments that would normally not incur any interest, just by having the convince check balance on my account I was being charged the interest for my normal credit card charges over the month. The amount of charges came out to only be around $10-$20, so wasn't much of a loss really. But something to keep in mind when using these, (I tried it with 0% APR and still couldn't get away from the interest). If I had needed the money this would still be an excellent way to go. But if your trying to beat Chase with this game, it doesn't work... Although if you don't use the card for anything other than the convenience check it's free money (or cheap @ 3.99% in your case) Everything in my account went back to normal after it was paid off, so no harm really, but some things to keep in mind at least."
}
] | [
{
"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": "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": "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": "547835",
"title": "",
"text": "For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later."
},
{
"docid": "393866",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "215180",
"title": "",
"text": "First and foremost you should do more research on credit cards and what everything means. As expressed by others the balance transfer fee is not what you think it is. Credit cards can be great, they can also quickly erode your credit score and your standing. So understanding the basics is VERY important. The credit card that is right for you should have the following criteria. The first two points should be straight forward, you should not have to pay a CC company for the privilege to use their card. They should pay you through perks and rewards. It should also be a CC that can be used for what you need it for. If you travel internationally a lot and the CC you choose only works within the US then what good is it? The third point is where you need to ask yourself what you do a lot and if a CC can offer rewards through travel miles, or cash back or other bonuses based on your lifestyle. The transfer fee is not what you think it is, people who already are carrying debt on another credit card and would like to transfer that debt to another credit card would be interested in finding a fee or a low %. People do this to get a batter rate or to get away from a bad credit card. If one charges 28% and another charges 13%, well it makes sense to transfer existing debt over to the 13% provided they don't crush you on fees. Since you have no credit card debt (assumption based on the fact you want to build your credit), you should ask yourself for what purpose and how often do you plan to use the credit card. Would this card be just for emergencies, and wont be used on daily purchases then a credit card that offers 3% cash back on gasoline purchases is not for you. If you however love to travel and plan to use your credit card for a lot of purchases OR have a few large purchases (insurance, tuition etc.) then get a credit card that provides rewards like miles. It really comes down to you and your situation. There are numerous websites dedicated to the best credit card for any situation. The final thing I will say is what I mentioned at the beginning, its important, CC's can be a tool to establish and improve your credit worthiness, they can also be a tool to destroy your credit worthiness, so be careful and make smart choices on what you use your card for. A credit score is like a mountain, it requires a slow and steady discipline to reach the top, but one misstep and that credit score can tumble quickly."
},
{
"docid": "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": "351664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit card interest rates are obscene. Try to find some other kind of loan for the furnishings; if you put things on the card, try to pay them off as quickly as possible. I should say that for most people I do recommend having a credit card. Hotels, car rental agencies, and a fair number of other businesses expect to be able to guarantee your reservation by taking the card info and it is much harder to do business with them without one. It gives you a short-term emergency fund you can tap (and then immediately pay back, or as close to immediately as possible). Credit cards are one of the safer ways to pay via internet, since they have guarantees that limit your liability if they are misused, and the bank can help you \"\"charge back\"\" to a vendor who doesn't deliver as promised. And if you have the self-discipline to pay the balance due in full every month, they can be a convenient alternative to carrying a checkbook or excessive amounts of cash. But there are definitely people who haven't learned how to use this particular tool without hurting themselves. Remember that it needs to be handled with respect and appropriate caution.\""
},
{
"docid": "561123",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\""
},
{
"docid": "311349",
"title": "",
"text": "I can't speak for India, but for US travelers abroad, using an ATM card that reimburses transaction fees is usually the most convenient and cheapest way to obtain foreign cash. There are several banks and brokerages that offer these types of ATM cards in the US. The exchange rate is competitive and because the fees are reimbursed it's cheaper and easy than going to a bank or kiosk to exchange currencies. I don't know if you can get accounts/cards like this in India that reimburse ATM fees. For purchases, using a credit card is fine, too. Some cards charge a foreign transaction fee of ~1%, some don't. The credit card I use most of the time does charge a 1% transaction fee, but I get 2% back in rewards so I still don't mind using it when traveling."
},
{
"docid": "11082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have what is called in the biz a \"\"thin file\"\". Check with a Credit Union. They will get you a secured card or maybe a straight credit card. They usually will graduate you from a secured card to a real credit card in 12-18 months. Then you are on your way. You should also sign up for Creditkarma to get your credit report updated every week. They make their money on referring people to credit card companies so you might be able to kill two birds with one stone.\""
},
{
"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": "549665",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would a lender for a down payment want proof of income for a house when a credit card issuer gave me more and doesn't care? The risk profile and rate of interest are different. Could I use this argument as a basis that they have no reasoning to request proof of income, if another lender (credit card company) would give me more without proof of repayment? You could argue anything, but it does not mean the other company will agree with your argument. Should I borrow a home loan from a credit card company then? Or what's the catch here? You can. Check the rate of interest and penal fees; you would realize how much you will end up paying. Depending on the country, the difference could be in the region of 10-15%."
},
{
"docid": "129034",
"title": "",
"text": "Have you checked to see if anything else went missing? Walmart says that because I was not the original purchaser of the gift card, they could not help me directly Just to build on what @littleadv already gave you, my personal experience on this is that none of the companies that you'll likely be dealing with in a situation like this will be falling over themselves to help you out. Unless it also helps them for some reason, or if they're compelled by consumer laws. If you think you should be protected from this sort of thing happening, feel free to reference the FCRA to see if you might get any consumer protections. But just from what you've said here, it doesn't sound like you do. So if anything else went missing (or even if not), it might have been someone working for Citi, who may have had access to more of your personal information than just your card. ID theft is unfortunately common, as a fairly easy crime to commit, a hard one to protect yourself against, and a very hard one to prosecute. When did you last check your credit report?"
},
{
"docid": "219033",
"title": "",
"text": "It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though."
},
{
"docid": "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": "428689",
"title": "",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away."
},
{
"docid": "584419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
}
] |
5196 | I might use a credit card convenience check. What should I consider? | [
{
"docid": "114829",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, you might take a minor hit to your credit score. This is snapshot of my credit utilization written for an article on my site. The point there was that zero card use actually dinged the score, but for you, going over the 20% level is the risk. It's not too large a hit, depending how high the utilization goes. I'd not lose sleep over it. Kind of you to help."
}
] | [
{
"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": "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": "57229",
"title": "",
"text": "Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is."
},
{
"docid": "521070",
"title": "",
"text": "For those who don't know, credit card checks are blank checks that your credit card company sends you. When you fill them out and spend them, you are taking a cash advance on your credit card account. You should be aware that taking a cash advance on your credit card normally has extra fees and finance charges above what you have with regular credit card transactions. That having been said, when you take one of these to your bank and try to deposit them, it is entirely up to bank policy how long they will make you wait to use these funds. They want to be sure that it is a legitimate check and that it will be honored. If your teller doesn't know the answer to that question, you'll need to find someone at the bank who does. If you don't like the answer they give you, you'll need to find another bank. I would think that if the credit card is from Chase, and you are trying to deposit a credit card check into a Chase checking account, they should be able to do that instantly. However, bank policy doesn't always make sense."
},
{
"docid": "121233",
"title": "",
"text": "A few things for you to consider: (1) Yes, if your average daily balance is lower [because you paid it off when you received your paycheck, then slowly used the card for the remainder of the month, until it's at the same balance next paycheck, vs just having the card at a flat $5k the whole month], you will accrue less interest, thereby allowing you to pay it off faster by reducing your interest payments. BUT: (2) Carrying a balance on your credit card is a big financial no-no, and eliminating it should be an immediate priority for you. If there is anything you can do (step 1: budget your expenses and then track actuals to see where you stand - step 2: see what expenses you can reduce - step 3: see if you can increase your income - step 4: rebudget with your new goals, determine how long it would take to pay off the card, possibly considering consolidating/refinancing your debt at a lower interest rate) to pay it off faster, then do it. However (3) If you have absolutely zero cash on hand, then taking your paycheck and immediately paying down your credit card, and then relying on that card to pay for things until the next paycheck, puts you at risk of your available credit changing. ie: if you have 5k on the card, and pay it down to 4.25k, then what happens to you if the credit card company [because they view you as a risk, or for whatever other reason - including a temporary hold because of fraudulent activity at no fault of your own] reduces your available credit to 4.5k? Suddenly, you will only have $250 in available spending power until your next paycheck. Therefore it may be wise for you to hold onto some amount of cash that you do not touch except for emergencies, even before you pay off your credit card. I really recommend you search this site for other questions related to budgeting and credit cards. There are many good answers, and some of what I've said above is just opinion, so you shouldn't just take my word for it, you should try to become familiar with these topics yourself. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "294128",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \"\"signature on-file\"\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\""
},
{
"docid": "451453",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A retail revolving account is essentially a credit card offered by a store (or chain of stores) and usable only at that store. In my area, the Sears department store's \"\"Sears card\"\" would be a good example. Stores offer these to capture a bit more profit from the transaction. They don't have to pay someone else's processing fees, and they get to keep any interest you pay. Of course they also accept the costs that go along with retail lending. It operates just like any other revolving-credit card. Read the fine print of the agreement to see what the grace period is, if any, and what APR they're charging after that. These cards also serve as a marketing tool. Some stores don't accept any other card. Some can do \"\"instant approvals\"\" to encourage you to make a large purchase now rather than continuing to shop around. Some may offer special deals only if you use their card -- I paid 0% interest for a year on my refrigerator, which was convenient for me. And so on. Gasoline stations also used to offer their own cards... though these days it's common for them to offer a branded version of one of the major credit cards instead.\""
},
{
"docid": "567201",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\""
},
{
"docid": "402543",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need a credit card anymore than you need a TV or a car. There might be many circumstances where a credit card is a convenience, there might be things you give up because you don't have a credit card. There are even some upsides to a well managed card account. But no, you don't need it."
},
{
"docid": "219033",
"title": "",
"text": "It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though."
},
{
"docid": "307767",
"title": "",
"text": "I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution."
},
{
"docid": "171339",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One of the factors of a credit score is the \"\"length of time revolving accounts have been established\"\". Having a credit card with any line of credit will help in this regard. The account will age regardless of your use or utilization. If you are having issues with credit limits and no credit history, you may have trouble getting financing for the purchase. You should be sure you're approved for financing, and not just that the financing option is \"\"available\"\" (potentially with the caveat of \"\"for well qualified borrowers\"\"). Generally, if you've gotten approved for financing, that will come in the form of another credit card account (many contracting and plumbing companies will do this in hopes you will use the card for future purchases) or a bank loan account (more common for auto and home loans). With the credit card account, you might be able to perform a balance transfer, but there are usually fees associated with that. For bank loan accounts, you probably can't pay that off with a credit card. You'll need to transfer money to the account via ACH or send in a check. In short: I wouldn't bet on paying with your current credit card to get any benefit. IANAL. Utilizing promotional offers, whether interest-free for __ months, no balance transfer fees, or whatever, and passing your debt around is not illegal, not fraudulent, and in many cases advised (this is a link), though that is more for people to distribute utilization across multiple cards, and to minimize interest accrued. Many people, myself included, use a credit card for purchasing EVERYTHING, then pay it off in full every month (or sometimes immediately) to reap the benefit of cash back rewards and other cardholder benefits. I've also made a major payment (tuition, actually) on a Discover card, and opened up a new Visa card with 18-months of no interest and no balance transfer fees to let the bill sit for 12 months while I finished school and got a job.\""
},
{
"docid": "471501",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The new information helps a little, but you're still stuck as far as doing exactly what you asked. The question that you really should be asking is \"\"How do I deposit money into my BofA checking account from Italy?\"\" If you can figure that out, then the whole part about your father's AmEx card really becomes irrelevant. He might get that money from a cash advance on his AmEx card or he might get it from somewhere else. I think there's some small chance that if you call BofA and ask the right question, they may give you an answer that will let you make this deposit. I tend to doubt it, but this would at least give you a chance. Other than that, you should probably look into some options based in Italy. For example, get the cash from your father and open a bank account in Italy. Maybe you can buy a pre-paid Visa card with the cash to use while you're there. Maybe use traveler's checks for the rest of your trip. Etc. What is available and what makes sense will still depend on a lot of details that we don't have (like how long you're staying and what type of entry visa you got when you entered Italy).\""
},
{
"docid": "11082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have what is called in the biz a \"\"thin file\"\". Check with a Credit Union. They will get you a secured card or maybe a straight credit card. They usually will graduate you from a secured card to a real credit card in 12-18 months. Then you are on your way. You should also sign up for Creditkarma to get your credit report updated every week. They make their money on referring people to credit card companies so you might be able to kill two birds with one stone.\""
},
{
"docid": "217030",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were \"\"free\"\" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour.\""
},
{
"docid": "311349",
"title": "",
"text": "I can't speak for India, but for US travelers abroad, using an ATM card that reimburses transaction fees is usually the most convenient and cheapest way to obtain foreign cash. There are several banks and brokerages that offer these types of ATM cards in the US. The exchange rate is competitive and because the fees are reimbursed it's cheaper and easy than going to a bank or kiosk to exchange currencies. I don't know if you can get accounts/cards like this in India that reimburse ATM fees. For purchases, using a credit card is fine, too. Some cards charge a foreign transaction fee of ~1%, some don't. The credit card I use most of the time does charge a 1% transaction fee, but I get 2% back in rewards so I still don't mind using it when traveling."
},
{
"docid": "524149",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\""
},
{
"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": "509075",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a CapitalOne credit card, and every two or three weeks, CapitalOne Bank sends me checks that can be used almost anywhere (including a deposit into my own checking account if I wish, or to pay taxes or utility bills etc)). The amount thus borrowed is counted as a balance transfer (as if I were paying off another credit-card balance) and it will be charged 0% interest for a year. The catch is that unless I pay off the next monthly statement in full by the due date, I will be charged interest on all new purchases from the day that they post to the account till the day they are paid off. No more grace period etc. All this will continue until that loan amount is paid off in full. So, I either would have to (i) pay off all the purchases made this month plus the minimum monthly payment shown on the next monthly statement and give up use of the card till that 0% balance is all repaid, or (ii) pay interest on new purchases. It might be worth checking on the CapitalOne Credit Card site if such an offer is available to you. If so, get a check from them, pay off the invoice using that check (actually, I would strongly recommend depositing the money in your local bank and writing them your personal check for the amount to be paid), and then pay off next month's bill in full, etc."
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "563030",
"title": "",
"text": "Why not just get another credit card and transfer the balance? Many of them will give you special perks like x months of no interest for doing so. Also, once you call to actually cancel the card you will see for sure whether they really have any power to negotiate rates. From their perspective 15% APR is more than 0%APR which is what they'd get if they lose your business."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "382571",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My biggest concern with this plan is that there's no going back should you decide that it is not going to work, either due to the strain on the relationship or for some other reason. If you were borrowing from a relative in place of a mortgage or a car loan, you can always refinance, and might just pay a little more interest or closing costs from a bank. Student loans are effectively unsecured, so your only option for a \"\"refinance\"\" would be to get a personal, unsecured loan (or borrow against existing collateral if you have it). You are going to have a tough time getting another 50k unsecured personal loan at anywhere near student-loan rates. The other negative aspects (overall risk of borrowing from family, loss of possible tax deduction) make this plan a no-go for me. (I'm NOT saying that it's always a good idea to borrow from family for homes or cars, only that there's at least an exit plan should you both decide it was a bad idea).\""
},
{
"docid": "138511",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts."
},
{
"docid": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
},
{
"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": "213713",
"title": "",
"text": "First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false. It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash. This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor. The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods."
},
{
"docid": "427206",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money."
},
{
"docid": "124452",
"title": "",
"text": "Assume that he reformed his ways. He stopped the destructive behavior (gambling) and had enough money from a job going forward to pay for all his future expenses. Then it is true the old debts will fade away both as being collectable, and as a source of a negative mark on the credit report. Also assume that the people or companies never figure out that the the relative has a steady source of income, also assume that all the debts can be forgiven and have no long lasting impact. If any of those assumptions aren't true the plan won't work. The trail of debts will continue to grow, and may have additional complications. As debts fall off the radar, they may be replaced even faster by new threats. Many a person has used a debt consolidation loan, or a home equity loan to pay off all the credit cards; but found themselves back in trouble because they never fixed the underlying problem: they spend more than they make. In the case of a home equity loan they put their house at rick, as a replacement of unsecured loans. If the gambling continues, the lack of payment of old debts becomes a crutch for the ability to generate new debts."
},
{
"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": "126965",
"title": "",
"text": "The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first. In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first. Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off. Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life. If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates. Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home."
},
{
"docid": "143844",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's a difference between missing a payment and \"\"carrying a balance\"\" (making an on-time payments that are less than the full balance due). I have heard mortgage brokers claim that, if you have no other credit history, carrying a small balance here and there on a credit card may improve your score. (\"\"Small\"\" is in relation to your available credit and your ability to pay it off.) But actually missing a payment will probably hurt your score. Example: You have a card with a credit limit of $1000. In July you charge $300 worth of stuff. You get the next statement and it shows the balance due of $300 and a minimum payment of $100. If you pay the entire $300 balance in that cycle, most cards won't charge you any interest. You are not carrying a balance, so the credit scores may not reflect that you actually took a $300 loan and paid it off. If you instead pay $200, you'll be in good standing (because $200 is greater than the minimum payment). But you'll be carrying a $100 balance into the next statement cycle. Plus interest will accrue on that $100. If you do this regularly, your credit score will probably take into account that you've taken a small loan and made the payments. For those with no other credit history, this may be an appropriate way to increase your credit score. (But you're paying interest, so it's not free.) And if the average balance you carry is considered high relative to your ability to pay or to the total credit available to you, then this could adversely affect your score (or, at least, the amount of credit another provider is willing to extend to you). If you instead actually miss a payment, or make a payment that's less than the minimum payment, that will almost certainly hurt your credit score. It will also incur penalties as well as interest. You want to avoid that whenever possible. My guess is that, in the game of telephone from the banker to you, the \"\"carrying a balance\"\" was misinterpreted as \"\"missing a payment.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "506344",
"title": "",
"text": "It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money"
},
{
"docid": "56794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity). This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this. :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can \"\"take it out\"\" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to \"\"profit.\"\" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so \"\"cashing out\"\" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "289177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some reasons I take low-interest loans are: Leverage. If the loan's rate is low enough, then I can invest the cash in something fairly low-risk, and make more money than I pay in interest. The interest rate has to be pretty low, say below 4% or so. My auto loan is low enough and my home loan is low enough if you count the tax deduction. Obviously you have to invest in something riskier than cash here, though. And consider taxes, which lower the rate you're paying on a home loan, but also lower the returns you're getting on any bonds you invest in. Liquidity and flexibility. If I have N thousands in cash instead of tied up in my house, then I could use that money to survive many months of unemployment for example, or handle any other emergency. But if you become unemployed or have some other emergency, it will be too late to get a home loan. Credit rating. It's good to use some credit, just so you can get more if you need it. But this isn't a reason to take a particular loan, just a reason to have some kind of credit card or loan. Budgeting. When budgeting, it's best to think of expenses such as cars and houses in terms of a monthly cost, so you can see how they nudge out or allow other spending. (When negotiating with a car dealer, of course, use total cost so you don't get screwed by him messing with interest rates.) I wouldn't take a loan just to ease the budgeting (you can always manually \"\"amortize\"\") but it's a nice side effect. For credit cards, there are more buyer protections and you get a nice transaction log (again useful in budgeting). Also you don't have to carry around cash, or worry about your checking account balance. So credit cards are just convenient. But even though my card has a very low rate, it isn't low enough that I want to keep a balance month-to-month, so I don't use credit cards to actually borrow money.\""
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "409927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"promptly paying off the outstanding balance\"\", do you mean you pay it off literally as soon as you have incurred the debt? It is important to actually let the debt post on a statement before you pay it off. If you pay it off before the statement posts then this won't help your credit at all. Once the statement posts you can pay the entire balance off before the due date and you will still pay no interest. Assuming you are allowing the balance to actually post on your statements, you can simply continue to do this and your credit score will improve over time as your account(s) get older and you show that you are reliable. The only other way to improve your credit score is to open more accounts. In the short term this will actually hurt your score, as it will decrease your average age of account and add an inquiry. However in the mid-long term, this will improve your score as having more accounts of a variety of types is better for your score. Having an installment loan such as an auto loan or home loan is good for your score as it is different from a credit card - however you should definitely not engage in one of these unless it makes financial sense for other reasons. Don't add debt just to build your credit score. You could just open more credit cards. Like I said it will hurt your score in the short term but improve it in the mid-long term. Open cards with a variety of benefits so you can use them for different things to get better rewards.\""
},
{
"docid": "581697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\""
},
{
"docid": "122807",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I actually had a similar situation when I tried to buy my house. I paid off all my loans and was proud of my \"\"debt free\"\" status. I had no car note, no student loans... absolutely no debt, but I did have a bank-issued credit card. (USAA, not Chase, but I assume the same may apply). When I tried to get a home loan they told me I had \"\"absolutely no information on my credit report.\"\" AKA I had no credit. The mortgage lender had no idea what was going on, nor did I or anybody else. It took a lot of research before I realized that the credit bureaus use a formula for the credit rating that involves a lot of things, but if you haven't had a current line of credit reported to the agency in over a year (maybe it was longer, I didn't have anything for 3 years) you aren't going to have a credit score. Because I was \"\"debt free\"\" I was also credit report free and eventually the credit bureaus had nothing to go on, and my score disappeared. The bank-issued credit card was on my credit report, but they didn't report monthly balances so the bureaus couldn't use it to determine if I was paying off the card or if I even had a balance on it. It was essentially not doing my credit any favors, despite what I had thought. In short, based on the fact that you have no debt in her name, and you have taken on all debt in your own name, its very plausible that she has no credit rating anymore. It won't take long to get it back. Once you have ANYTHING on your credit that's actually reported the formula can kick back in and look at credit history as well as current credit and she'll be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "273095",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency."
},
{
"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."
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "287157",
"title": "",
"text": "I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "273528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\""
},
{
"docid": "486402",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first."
},
{
"docid": "69938",
"title": "",
"text": "If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank."
},
{
"docid": "421743",
"title": "",
"text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\""
},
{
"docid": "273719",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you have the option of paying cash for the phone? To answer your question though: Essentially, you have to use credit RESPONSIBLY. That doesn't mean go get a slew of loans and pay them off. As Ratish said, a credit card is a good start. I basically buy everything with a card and then pay it off every month when the bill comes out. I actually have two and I alternate but that's getting nitpicky. It should be noted that simply getting a card won't help your score. In fact, it may go down initially as the inquiry and new account opening may have a negative effect. The positive effect will happen as you develop good payment behavior over time. One big thing you can do, in your case, is always pay your mobile bill on time. Having a good payment history with them will go a long way to prove you are responsible."
},
{
"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": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
},
{
"docid": "550166",
"title": "",
"text": "No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted."
},
{
"docid": "122807",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I actually had a similar situation when I tried to buy my house. I paid off all my loans and was proud of my \"\"debt free\"\" status. I had no car note, no student loans... absolutely no debt, but I did have a bank-issued credit card. (USAA, not Chase, but I assume the same may apply). When I tried to get a home loan they told me I had \"\"absolutely no information on my credit report.\"\" AKA I had no credit. The mortgage lender had no idea what was going on, nor did I or anybody else. It took a lot of research before I realized that the credit bureaus use a formula for the credit rating that involves a lot of things, but if you haven't had a current line of credit reported to the agency in over a year (maybe it was longer, I didn't have anything for 3 years) you aren't going to have a credit score. Because I was \"\"debt free\"\" I was also credit report free and eventually the credit bureaus had nothing to go on, and my score disappeared. The bank-issued credit card was on my credit report, but they didn't report monthly balances so the bureaus couldn't use it to determine if I was paying off the card or if I even had a balance on it. It was essentially not doing my credit any favors, despite what I had thought. In short, based on the fact that you have no debt in her name, and you have taken on all debt in your own name, its very plausible that she has no credit rating anymore. It won't take long to get it back. Once you have ANYTHING on your credit that's actually reported the formula can kick back in and look at credit history as well as current credit and she'll be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "124452",
"title": "",
"text": "Assume that he reformed his ways. He stopped the destructive behavior (gambling) and had enough money from a job going forward to pay for all his future expenses. Then it is true the old debts will fade away both as being collectable, and as a source of a negative mark on the credit report. Also assume that the people or companies never figure out that the the relative has a steady source of income, also assume that all the debts can be forgiven and have no long lasting impact. If any of those assumptions aren't true the plan won't work. The trail of debts will continue to grow, and may have additional complications. As debts fall off the radar, they may be replaced even faster by new threats. Many a person has used a debt consolidation loan, or a home equity loan to pay off all the credit cards; but found themselves back in trouble because they never fixed the underlying problem: they spend more than they make. In the case of a home equity loan they put their house at rick, as a replacement of unsecured loans. If the gambling continues, the lack of payment of old debts becomes a crutch for the ability to generate new debts."
},
{
"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": "65532",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing you need to do is look at your terms and conditions of your credit card, or ask your bank, how they will apply the payments. As Dilip notes in his answer, in the US, they will likely apply the minimum payment to the lower rate balance, and then must apply the rest above the minimum to the higher rate balance. In other countries, this will vary by law and custom. Do not assume it will pay off the higher balance, or proportionally, without asking. Let's take the following example. You owe $6000. $5000 is at 13.5% (normal purchase rate) and $1000 is at 22% (cash advance rate). If your bank applies payments to both balances proportionally, then a payment of $600 will reduce your purchase balance by $500 and your cash advance balance by $100. The average APR, then, is simply sum of the product of the APR times balance. So here, (.135*5000 + .225*1000)/6000 = 15%. This is called a weighted average. If the bank applies the payment differently - such as to the lower rate first, or some specified part to the lower rate and the rest to the higher rate - then this will be misleading if you enter it into a calculator, because your average APR will rise over time as you pay off the purchase balance but don't pay off the cash advance balance, or may decrease if the opposite happens. The weighted average is probably reasonably close in the circumstance that you describe, even if you have rules applying the balance differently, so long as they don't 100% pay down the lower rate - so it may be the simplest option for you in terms of rough calculations (where it's not critical to be correct, just close). One approach using the online calculators that might be better, is to treat these like two separate loans/cards. Many calculators exist for multiple balances. Then you can allocate funds differently to the two 'cards'. This would allow you to see how long you will need until you've paid off the higher balance, for example, although it probably won't perfectly match things - unless you find a site that has this specific option available you probably will have to either live with a small error in your calculations or do the math by hand."
},
{
"docid": "506344",
"title": "",
"text": "It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money"
},
{
"docid": "52250",
"title": "",
"text": "It sounds like your current loan is in your name. As such, you are responsible for paying it. Not your family, you. It also sounds like the loan payments are regularly late. That'll likely drastically affect your credit rating. Given what you've said, it doesn't surprise me that you were declined for a credit card. With the information on your credit report, you are a poor risk. Assuming your family is unable to pay loan on time (and assuming you aren't willing to do so), you desperately need to get your name off the loan. This may mean selling the property and closing out the loan. This won't be enough to fix your credit, though. All that will do is stop making your credit worse. It'll take a few years (five years in Canada, not sure how many years in India) until this loan stops showing up on your credit report. That's why it is important to do this immediately. Now, can a bank give you a loan or a credit card despite bad credit? Yes, absolutely. It all depends on how bad your credit is. If the bank is willing to do so, they'll most likely charge a higher interest rate. But the bank may well decide not to give you a loan. After all, your credit report shows you don't make your loan payments on time. You may also want to request your own copy of your credit report. You may have to pay for this, especially if you want to see your score. This could be valuable information if you are looking to fix your finances, and may be worth the cost. If you are sure it's just this one loan, it may not be necessary. Good luck! Edit: In India CIBIL is the authority that maintains records. Getting to know you exact score will help. CIBIL offers it via TransUnion. The non-payment will keep appearing on your record for 3 years. As you don't have any loans, get a credit card from a Bank where you have Fixed Deposits / PPF Account as it would be easier to get one. It can then help you build the credit."
},
{
"docid": "111594",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit cards come with an interest-free grace period of ~25 days as long as you pay your balance in full every month. In other words, charges made in January will appear on a bill cut on Jan 31, and due around the 25th of February. If paid in full by 2/25, there's no interest. It is a very good idea to get in the habit of paying off your entire balance every month for this very reason. Don't buy anything you can't afford to pay for at the end of the month when the credit card bill is due. You'll avoid interest charges, build good habits, and improve your credit score. By just paying the minimum amount due, you'll be charged interest from the moment of purchase, and the grace period on new purchases goes away. Credit card companies make the minimum amount due relatively low as a way to encourage you to pay more and more in interest every month. Don't fall for it! Look for a credit card with zero annual fee. Sure, rewards are nice, but it's more important to avoid fees, keep the interest rate low, and get in the habit of paying in full every month, in which case the interest rate won't matter. Your bank or credit union is a good place to start looking."
},
{
"docid": "200268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\""
},
{
"docid": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "28230",
"title": "",
"text": "I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "504293",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge)."
},
{
"docid": "298908",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's the issue as I see it. The fact that one has high interest debt says a lot about the potential borrower. Odds are very good that person will not pay the zero card off before the rate expires, and will likely charge more along the way. I'd love to be able to say \"\"great idea, borrowing at a low rate to pay off a high rate card will be the first step to getting you all paid off\"\" but chances are in a year's time you will not be better off. You said you know a lot of people that have done this. Have they all been successful? It's possible, but I'd heed the warnings of those here and first think how you got into the credit card debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "454308",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else. We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford. In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as \"\"real\"\" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise).\""
},
{
"docid": "399013",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students."
},
{
"docid": "153088",
"title": "",
"text": "12% is ridiculously high and routine for loans with no credit history, esp. from the dealer. I don't think though paying off would hurt your credit - you've already got installment loan on your report, and you have history of payments, so it shouldn't matter how long the history is (warning: this is kind of guesswork compiled from personal experience and stuff read on the net, since officially how credit score calculated is Top Secret). If you have the loan and credit card with good payments, only thing you need to build credit is time (and, of course, keeping everything nicely paid). Of course, if you could find a loan with lower rate somewhere it's be great to refinance but with low credit you would probably not get the best rates from anywhere, unfortunately."
},
{
"docid": "273528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\""
},
{
"docid": "327366",
"title": "",
"text": "There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done. I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky). Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt."
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "486402",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first."
},
{
"docid": "461879",
"title": "",
"text": "I think people are conflating two orthogonal sets of terms. Unsecured/secured and good/bad are not synonyms. Debt may be secured or unsecured. If I take a loan against a car or house it is typically secured, so the object is collateral against the loan. Bad debt in financial terms is a loan that is not expected to be recovered. A bank might write off a loan or a portion of a loan as bad debt if the borrower goes bankrupt or into administration for example. Both secured and unsecured loans may be considered bad debt. I think the context in which the question is being asked is how to distinguish between sensible and inadvisable borrowing. An extreme example of inadvisable borrowing would be to buy a PC on a store card. PCs devalue very quickly and a store card may charge 30% APR, so paying the minimum off each month would mean paying more than twice the sticker price for a product that is now worth less than half the original borrowed amount. On the other hand, a 3% mortgage when borrowing less than 60% of the value of a property is a good bet from a lender's perspective, and would be a good debt to have (not as good as no debt, but better thhan a high APR one)."
},
{
"docid": "56794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity). This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this. :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can \"\"take it out\"\" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to \"\"profit.\"\" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so \"\"cashing out\"\" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "30623",
"title": "",
"text": "From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future."
},
{
"docid": "307767",
"title": "",
"text": "I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution."
},
{
"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": "391361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am a bit confused here as to how a 4K loan will negatively effect your credit score if payments are made on time. FICO scores are based upon how well you borrow. If you borrow, pay back on time, your score will not go down. Perhaps a bit in the short run when you first secure the loan, but that should come back quickly. In the long run it will help improve your score which seems like it would be more important to you. Having the provider finance your loan will probably not show up on your credit unless you fail to pay and they send to collections. If the score is so important to you, which I think is somewhat unwise, then use a credit card. With a 750 you should be able to get a pretty good rate, but assume it is 18%. In less then 9 months you will have it paid off, paying about $293 in interest. You could consider that a part of the cost of doing business for maintaining a high credit score. Again not what I would advise, but it might meet your needs. One alternative is go with lending club. With that kind of score, you are looking at 7% or so. At $500 a month, you are still looking at just over 8 months and paying about $100 in interest. Much less money for improving your credit score. Edit based upon the comment: \"\"My understanding is that using a significant portion of your available credit balance is bad for your credit, even if you pay your bills on time.\"\" Define bad. As I said it might go down slightly in the short term. In three months you will have almost 33% of the loan paid off, which is significantly lower then the original balance. If you go the credit card route, you may be approved for quite a bit more then the 4000, which may not move the needle at all. Are you planning on buying a home in the next 90 days? If not, why does a small short term dip matter? Will your life really be effected if your score goes down to 720 for three months? Keep in mind this is exactly the kind of behavior that the banks want you to engage in. If you worship your FICO score, which gives no indication of wealth then you should do exactly what I am suggesting.\""
},
{
"docid": "406853",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have no credit score it is generally far easier and more affordable to establish credit the cheapest way possible, which is usually in the form of a small credit card (student card if you are a student, low credit line unsecured, or even secured if you need). Your local bank/credit union will usually be keen to offer you something to start out, but you can also apply online to some of the major credit card vendors. As always, look out for annual fees, etc. In general, trying to get a larger loan to establish credit will cost you a lot as you will not qualify for any legitimate 0% or ultra-low APR car loans - those are reserved for people with established and generally pretty good credit. I expect you'll find a car loan that will have a lower APR than you could get investing your money otherwise - especially if you do not have established excellent credit - to simply be a phantom (you won't find it), and even if you could it is more risky than it is worth. Furthermore, if establishing credit is important to you (such as for buying a house down the road), you can build an excellent credit score without ever having a car loan. So you don't have to buy a car on borrowed money just to hope to get approved for a house some day - it's just not a requirement. Finally, I urge you to make a decision on the best car for you in your situation, ignoring the credit score - especially if you are more than 3-5+ years away from buying a house. Everything else about buying a car is more important - the actual cost of the car, year, mileage, suitability for your needs, gas mileage, maintenance and insurance costs, etc. Then, at the very end of your decision making process, ensure that buying the car would not put you dangerously low on savings by squeezing your emergency fund. Decide if you really need a loan or as expensive of a car, considering the costs over the expected life of you owning the car (or at least the next 2-5 years). Never get trapped into just thinking about monthly payments, which hide the true cost of loans and buying beyond what you can afford to purchase today."
},
{
"docid": "293363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
},
{
"docid": "277003",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're looking for cause-effect, applying for another card won't matter at all if you're not paying any interest, or not looking to get another installment loan for which the rate you get depends on your credit rating. If you are looking to get another installment loan, then having more credit at your disposal might hurt a small amount. I wouldn't want to cancel your oldest card. The GEMB card looks like a good candidate if you want to cancel because you're not using it, and it's a relatively new card."
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "201982",
"title": "",
"text": "Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "504293",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge)."
},
{
"docid": "82472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\""
},
{
"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": "105687",
"title": "",
"text": "Why don't you just put your down payment on one of your credit cards? (Note: I'm not actually suggesting that you do this. Please read on.) There are a few reasons why you wouldn't (or couldn't) do this: The interest rates on the cards you have is very high. You don't have enough of a credit limit on any one of your cards for the down payment. These two reasons highlight the answer to your question. Credit card companies charge very high interest rates. These high rates allow them to make money even when some of their customers default. They know that not everyone will pay them back, so they make sure to make a hefty profit on those who do. Secondly, credit card limits are often much lower than the amounts of car and home loans. This limits the risk to the credit card company. Sure, you have $100,000 in total credit limit, but this is split among nine different companies. When a bank offers a traditional loan for a large sum of money at relatively low interest, they need to be able to limit their risk somehow. They do this by ensuring that their customers actually have the ability to pay them back."
},
{
"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": "423816",
"title": "",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card."
},
{
"docid": "506344",
"title": "",
"text": "It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money"
},
{
"docid": "122807",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I actually had a similar situation when I tried to buy my house. I paid off all my loans and was proud of my \"\"debt free\"\" status. I had no car note, no student loans... absolutely no debt, but I did have a bank-issued credit card. (USAA, not Chase, but I assume the same may apply). When I tried to get a home loan they told me I had \"\"absolutely no information on my credit report.\"\" AKA I had no credit. The mortgage lender had no idea what was going on, nor did I or anybody else. It took a lot of research before I realized that the credit bureaus use a formula for the credit rating that involves a lot of things, but if you haven't had a current line of credit reported to the agency in over a year (maybe it was longer, I didn't have anything for 3 years) you aren't going to have a credit score. Because I was \"\"debt free\"\" I was also credit report free and eventually the credit bureaus had nothing to go on, and my score disappeared. The bank-issued credit card was on my credit report, but they didn't report monthly balances so the bureaus couldn't use it to determine if I was paying off the card or if I even had a balance on it. It was essentially not doing my credit any favors, despite what I had thought. In short, based on the fact that you have no debt in her name, and you have taken on all debt in your own name, its very plausible that she has no credit rating anymore. It won't take long to get it back. Once you have ANYTHING on your credit that's actually reported the formula can kick back in and look at credit history as well as current credit and she'll be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "427206",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money."
},
{
"docid": "56794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity). This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this. :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can \"\"take it out\"\" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to \"\"profit.\"\" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so \"\"cashing out\"\" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "380387",
"title": "",
"text": "People are downvoting you, but the reality is that a cushion isn't a bad idea. Not a perpetual thing, but until the OP gets set up with a job place to live etc. They know the job is going to work out etc., they might want to have some cash, as they are likely not going to forgo eating etc... that said I would treat it as money to be used in place of a credit card (with the high rates) etc... Again I am not saying spend the money, I am being realistic, that it takes money to secure an apt, and unless you can borrow cheaper than 6% elsewhere (I know I could probably get unsecured money cheaper than that where I live, but I don't know the OPs situation). I wouldn't invest it given the situation personally. If you have a great job, it won't matter, you will build up past 1200 soon and can then start to invest a portion of that cash. If you don't, then you shouldn't be risking debt money, especially if your level of sophistication in the market has you here asking the question. That 6% savings is tax free as well, so you need to gross it up based on your tax situation. Also make note of any currency conversions that would need to happen, so depending on what you want to invest in, currency risk could be a real concern as well. One other reason I think getting down at least a portion of the debt could be good is simplification. Can't spend money you don't view yourself as having. Some people might be more disciplined to reign in spending when they see a lower number in their account. I'm personally not one of those people, but again, I would likely kill the debt off now just to have one less thing on my mind... but only as soon as I am stable (know where I am going to live, have enough to eat, and relatively sure that will continue in the future...)"
},
{
"docid": "273528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\""
},
{
"docid": "65461",
"title": "",
"text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option."
},
{
"docid": "143593",
"title": "",
"text": "the best thing to do is file bankrupt. your credit will be shot for 7 to 10 years. however usually 3 years after the bankrupt people will give you small lines of credit. then you rebuild on the small credit lines. and never get into a bad loan again you learn from mistakes. there is no shame in a mistake if you learned from it. I rebuilt my credit by using fingerhut. small credit limit on a cap 1 credit card 300 dollars unsecured card. personal loan of 1500 dollars to buy a old clunk for a car as I did not want to have five years of car payments. you can also get a secured credit card. and build credit with that. the bank will explain how to build credit using your own money. also you should know a lot of banks like your bankrupt stat. because they no you cant file for several more years. meaning if you don't pay your loan they can garnish you and you cant file bankrupt. you can get a new car loan with good interest rate. by taking 5000 dollars of your 15000 dollars savings down on the new loan. making your new car loan have better payments cheaper and better interest. and get a secured credit card of 2000 to build towards a unsecured credit card. keep all your new credit tabs small and pay on time.i would not use all your nest egg savings. that is not smart. get a lawyer and file. stay in school you will have a fresh start and you learned about upside down loans. don't listen to people trying to tell you bankruptsy is bad. it in a lot of ways gives you the upper hand in a no win debt or debts."
},
{
"docid": "550166",
"title": "",
"text": "No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted."
},
{
"docid": "399013",
"title": "",
"text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students."
},
{
"docid": "409927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"promptly paying off the outstanding balance\"\", do you mean you pay it off literally as soon as you have incurred the debt? It is important to actually let the debt post on a statement before you pay it off. If you pay it off before the statement posts then this won't help your credit at all. Once the statement posts you can pay the entire balance off before the due date and you will still pay no interest. Assuming you are allowing the balance to actually post on your statements, you can simply continue to do this and your credit score will improve over time as your account(s) get older and you show that you are reliable. The only other way to improve your credit score is to open more accounts. In the short term this will actually hurt your score, as it will decrease your average age of account and add an inquiry. However in the mid-long term, this will improve your score as having more accounts of a variety of types is better for your score. Having an installment loan such as an auto loan or home loan is good for your score as it is different from a credit card - however you should definitely not engage in one of these unless it makes financial sense for other reasons. Don't add debt just to build your credit score. You could just open more credit cards. Like I said it will hurt your score in the short term but improve it in the mid-long term. Open cards with a variety of benefits so you can use them for different things to get better rewards.\""
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "117276",
"title": "",
"text": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "289177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some reasons I take low-interest loans are: Leverage. If the loan's rate is low enough, then I can invest the cash in something fairly low-risk, and make more money than I pay in interest. The interest rate has to be pretty low, say below 4% or so. My auto loan is low enough and my home loan is low enough if you count the tax deduction. Obviously you have to invest in something riskier than cash here, though. And consider taxes, which lower the rate you're paying on a home loan, but also lower the returns you're getting on any bonds you invest in. Liquidity and flexibility. If I have N thousands in cash instead of tied up in my house, then I could use that money to survive many months of unemployment for example, or handle any other emergency. But if you become unemployed or have some other emergency, it will be too late to get a home loan. Credit rating. It's good to use some credit, just so you can get more if you need it. But this isn't a reason to take a particular loan, just a reason to have some kind of credit card or loan. Budgeting. When budgeting, it's best to think of expenses such as cars and houses in terms of a monthly cost, so you can see how they nudge out or allow other spending. (When negotiating with a car dealer, of course, use total cost so you don't get screwed by him messing with interest rates.) I wouldn't take a loan just to ease the budgeting (you can always manually \"\"amortize\"\") but it's a nice side effect. For credit cards, there are more buyer protections and you get a nice transaction log (again useful in budgeting). Also you don't have to carry around cash, or worry about your checking account balance. So credit cards are just convenient. But even though my card has a very low rate, it isn't low enough that I want to keep a balance month-to-month, so I don't use credit cards to actually borrow money.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "391361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am a bit confused here as to how a 4K loan will negatively effect your credit score if payments are made on time. FICO scores are based upon how well you borrow. If you borrow, pay back on time, your score will not go down. Perhaps a bit in the short run when you first secure the loan, but that should come back quickly. In the long run it will help improve your score which seems like it would be more important to you. Having the provider finance your loan will probably not show up on your credit unless you fail to pay and they send to collections. If the score is so important to you, which I think is somewhat unwise, then use a credit card. With a 750 you should be able to get a pretty good rate, but assume it is 18%. In less then 9 months you will have it paid off, paying about $293 in interest. You could consider that a part of the cost of doing business for maintaining a high credit score. Again not what I would advise, but it might meet your needs. One alternative is go with lending club. With that kind of score, you are looking at 7% or so. At $500 a month, you are still looking at just over 8 months and paying about $100 in interest. Much less money for improving your credit score. Edit based upon the comment: \"\"My understanding is that using a significant portion of your available credit balance is bad for your credit, even if you pay your bills on time.\"\" Define bad. As I said it might go down slightly in the short term. In three months you will have almost 33% of the loan paid off, which is significantly lower then the original balance. If you go the credit card route, you may be approved for quite a bit more then the 4000, which may not move the needle at all. Are you planning on buying a home in the next 90 days? If not, why does a small short term dip matter? Will your life really be effected if your score goes down to 720 for three months? Keep in mind this is exactly the kind of behavior that the banks want you to engage in. If you worship your FICO score, which gives no indication of wealth then you should do exactly what I am suggesting.\""
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "105687",
"title": "",
"text": "Why don't you just put your down payment on one of your credit cards? (Note: I'm not actually suggesting that you do this. Please read on.) There are a few reasons why you wouldn't (or couldn't) do this: The interest rates on the cards you have is very high. You don't have enough of a credit limit on any one of your cards for the down payment. These two reasons highlight the answer to your question. Credit card companies charge very high interest rates. These high rates allow them to make money even when some of their customers default. They know that not everyone will pay them back, so they make sure to make a hefty profit on those who do. Secondly, credit card limits are often much lower than the amounts of car and home loans. This limits the risk to the credit card company. Sure, you have $100,000 in total credit limit, but this is split among nine different companies. When a bank offers a traditional loan for a large sum of money at relatively low interest, they need to be able to limit their risk somehow. They do this by ensuring that their customers actually have the ability to pay them back."
},
{
"docid": "225522",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest concern is how you get $250,000 in unsecured credit. It's unlikely that you will be loaned that amount at a percentage lower than what you expect to earn. Unsecured credit lines are rarely lower than 10% and usually approach 20%. On top of that, for a bank to approve you for that credit line, you have to have a high credit score and an income to support the payments on that credit line. But lets suspend disbelief and assume that you can get the money you want on loan. You would then be expected to pay back that 10%, but investments don't go up uniformly. Some years they go up 15-20% and other years they go down 10%. What do you do if you have to sell some of your investments in a down year? That money is no longer invested, and you can't recover it with the following up year because you had to take too much out to cover the loan payments. You'll be out of money long before the loan is repaid because you can expect there will be bad years in the stock market that will eat away at your investment. There were a lot of people who took their money out of the market after the crash of 2008. If they had left their money in through 2009, they would have made all that money back, but if you have a loan to pay you have to pull money out in the bad years as well as the good years. Unless you have a lucky streak of all good years, you're doomed."
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "273528",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\""
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "88942",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "56794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity). This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this. :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can \"\"take it out\"\" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to \"\"profit.\"\" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so \"\"cashing out\"\" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "454308",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else. We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford. In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as \"\"real\"\" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise).\""
},
{
"docid": "398090",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\""
},
{
"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": "153088",
"title": "",
"text": "12% is ridiculously high and routine for loans with no credit history, esp. from the dealer. I don't think though paying off would hurt your credit - you've already got installment loan on your report, and you have history of payments, so it shouldn't matter how long the history is (warning: this is kind of guesswork compiled from personal experience and stuff read on the net, since officially how credit score calculated is Top Secret). If you have the loan and credit card with good payments, only thing you need to build credit is time (and, of course, keeping everything nicely paid). Of course, if you could find a loan with lower rate somewhere it's be great to refinance but with low credit you would probably not get the best rates from anywhere, unfortunately."
},
{
"docid": "19479",
"title": "",
"text": "You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc."
},
{
"docid": "273719",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you have the option of paying cash for the phone? To answer your question though: Essentially, you have to use credit RESPONSIBLY. That doesn't mean go get a slew of loans and pay them off. As Ratish said, a credit card is a good start. I basically buy everything with a card and then pay it off every month when the bill comes out. I actually have two and I alternate but that's getting nitpicky. It should be noted that simply getting a card won't help your score. In fact, it may go down initially as the inquiry and new account opening may have a negative effect. The positive effect will happen as you develop good payment behavior over time. One big thing you can do, in your case, is always pay your mobile bill on time. Having a good payment history with them will go a long way to prove you are responsible."
},
{
"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": "114303",
"title": "",
"text": "what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere."
}
] |
5206 | Is it a good idea to get an unsecured loan to pay off a credit card that won't lower a high rate? | [
{
"docid": "300660",
"title": "",
"text": "Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "298908",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's the issue as I see it. The fact that one has high interest debt says a lot about the potential borrower. Odds are very good that person will not pay the zero card off before the rate expires, and will likely charge more along the way. I'd love to be able to say \"\"great idea, borrowing at a low rate to pay off a high rate card will be the first step to getting you all paid off\"\" but chances are in a year's time you will not be better off. You said you know a lot of people that have done this. Have they all been successful? It's possible, but I'd heed the warnings of those here and first think how you got into the credit card debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "559523",
"title": "",
"text": "Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term."
},
{
"docid": "47441",
"title": "",
"text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/"
},
{
"docid": "498728",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming you would still have a line of credit, it makes plenty of sense to pay off the loan. You're paying 16 percent for money you don't need right now. Pay it all off and you can start rebuilding your savings account. So what do you do in a future emergency? Well first off, you can use the savings you have rebuilt up to that point to fund some portion of it. The rest you can borrow again, as long as you have a line of credit somewhere. The icing on the cake though, is that once you stop carrying a balance, your credit card purchases will have grace periods again. Once that grace period kicks in, it's an effective short term free loan, and if you really wanted to, you could move money that would otherwise immediately go to purchases into savings. The difference is that you're paying in full again, and aren't charged any interest on the float. Just remember, that if you fail to pay in full by the due date, they charge retroactive interest and fees. An alternative is to find a way to consolidate your credit card bill into a collateralized loan. HELOCs for example. The rates are much cheaper than your CC bill, but require you to have some equity in the home. One thing to consider is that HELOCs are an open line of credit that can't be easily taken away. The interest is also tax deductible, unlike your credit card interest. There's also unsecured lines of credit from banks and credit unions, and if you have the credit score the can be cheaper than credit cards. I think I've shown here that there's plenty of alternatives to carrying credit card debt for the unexpected in life. Pay it off!"
},
{
"docid": "427206",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money."
},
{
"docid": "65532",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing you need to do is look at your terms and conditions of your credit card, or ask your bank, how they will apply the payments. As Dilip notes in his answer, in the US, they will likely apply the minimum payment to the lower rate balance, and then must apply the rest above the minimum to the higher rate balance. In other countries, this will vary by law and custom. Do not assume it will pay off the higher balance, or proportionally, without asking. Let's take the following example. You owe $6000. $5000 is at 13.5% (normal purchase rate) and $1000 is at 22% (cash advance rate). If your bank applies payments to both balances proportionally, then a payment of $600 will reduce your purchase balance by $500 and your cash advance balance by $100. The average APR, then, is simply sum of the product of the APR times balance. So here, (.135*5000 + .225*1000)/6000 = 15%. This is called a weighted average. If the bank applies the payment differently - such as to the lower rate first, or some specified part to the lower rate and the rest to the higher rate - then this will be misleading if you enter it into a calculator, because your average APR will rise over time as you pay off the purchase balance but don't pay off the cash advance balance, or may decrease if the opposite happens. The weighted average is probably reasonably close in the circumstance that you describe, even if you have rules applying the balance differently, so long as they don't 100% pay down the lower rate - so it may be the simplest option for you in terms of rough calculations (where it's not critical to be correct, just close). One approach using the online calculators that might be better, is to treat these like two separate loans/cards. Many calculators exist for multiple balances. Then you can allocate funds differently to the two 'cards'. This would allow you to see how long you will need until you've paid off the higher balance, for example, although it probably won't perfectly match things - unless you find a site that has this specific option available you probably will have to either live with a small error in your calculations or do the math by hand."
},
{
"docid": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
},
{
"docid": "110953",
"title": "",
"text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue."
},
{
"docid": "293363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "88942",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "406853",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have no credit score it is generally far easier and more affordable to establish credit the cheapest way possible, which is usually in the form of a small credit card (student card if you are a student, low credit line unsecured, or even secured if you need). Your local bank/credit union will usually be keen to offer you something to start out, but you can also apply online to some of the major credit card vendors. As always, look out for annual fees, etc. In general, trying to get a larger loan to establish credit will cost you a lot as you will not qualify for any legitimate 0% or ultra-low APR car loans - those are reserved for people with established and generally pretty good credit. I expect you'll find a car loan that will have a lower APR than you could get investing your money otherwise - especially if you do not have established excellent credit - to simply be a phantom (you won't find it), and even if you could it is more risky than it is worth. Furthermore, if establishing credit is important to you (such as for buying a house down the road), you can build an excellent credit score without ever having a car loan. So you don't have to buy a car on borrowed money just to hope to get approved for a house some day - it's just not a requirement. Finally, I urge you to make a decision on the best car for you in your situation, ignoring the credit score - especially if you are more than 3-5+ years away from buying a house. Everything else about buying a car is more important - the actual cost of the car, year, mileage, suitability for your needs, gas mileage, maintenance and insurance costs, etc. Then, at the very end of your decision making process, ensure that buying the car would not put you dangerously low on savings by squeezing your emergency fund. Decide if you really need a loan or as expensive of a car, considering the costs over the expected life of you owning the car (or at least the next 2-5 years). Never get trapped into just thinking about monthly payments, which hide the true cost of loans and buying beyond what you can afford to purchase today."
},
{
"docid": "191250",
"title": "",
"text": "On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one."
},
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "409927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"promptly paying off the outstanding balance\"\", do you mean you pay it off literally as soon as you have incurred the debt? It is important to actually let the debt post on a statement before you pay it off. If you pay it off before the statement posts then this won't help your credit at all. Once the statement posts you can pay the entire balance off before the due date and you will still pay no interest. Assuming you are allowing the balance to actually post on your statements, you can simply continue to do this and your credit score will improve over time as your account(s) get older and you show that you are reliable. The only other way to improve your credit score is to open more accounts. In the short term this will actually hurt your score, as it will decrease your average age of account and add an inquiry. However in the mid-long term, this will improve your score as having more accounts of a variety of types is better for your score. Having an installment loan such as an auto loan or home loan is good for your score as it is different from a credit card - however you should definitely not engage in one of these unless it makes financial sense for other reasons. Don't add debt just to build your credit score. You could just open more credit cards. Like I said it will hurt your score in the short term but improve it in the mid-long term. Open cards with a variety of benefits so you can use them for different things to get better rewards.\""
},
{
"docid": "63690",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend."
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "423816",
"title": "",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card."
}
] |
5228 | How does the bank/IRS know whether a bank transfer over $14k is a gift or loan repayment? | [
{
"docid": "232451",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need to file or do anything. The bank will report all transfers over 10 000, but chances are slim that it will even be looked at, if you don't do this every week. Worst case, someone will ask you about the source, and you tell them exactly what you wrote above (I had multiple international transfers over 60k and nobody ever asked). You said you paid his tuition, and he is now paying you back, so in case someone asks, you should be able to produce the documentation on the tuition payment - a bill, or your bank statement showing you paid it; and the amount should be matching, so you have proof. Note that if he pays you interest, it is taxable income. You are obligated to list it on your next tax filing."
}
] | [
{
"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": "398318",
"title": "",
"text": "Empirial evidence for the second scenario: Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence. Excerpt: It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower's bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower's account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory. Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years' history of banking - that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air."
},
{
"docid": "107727",
"title": "",
"text": "From the description, you have a post-1998 income contingent loan. The interest rate on those is currently 1.5% but it has varied quite a bit in the last few years due to the formula used to calculate it, which is either the inflation rate (RPI), or 1% + the highest base rate across a group of banks - whichever is smaller. This is indeed really cheap credit compared to any commercial loan you could get, though whether you should indeed just repay the minimum depends on making a proper comparison with the return on any spare money you could get after tax elsewhere. There is a table of previous interest rates. From your description I think you've had the loan for about 4 years - your final year of uni, one year of working without repayments and then two years of repayments. A very rough estimate is that you would have been charged about £300 of interest over that period. So there's still an apparent mismatch, though since both you and I made rough calculations it may be that a more precise check resolves it. But the other thing is that you should check what the date on the statement is. Once you start repaying, statements are sent for a period ending 5th April of each year. So you may well not be seeing the effect of several months of repayments since April on the statement. Finally, there's apparently an online facility you can use to get an up to date balance, though the administration of the loans repaid via PAYE is notoriously inefficient so there may well be a significant lag between a payment being made and it being reflected in your balance, though the effect should still be backdated to when you actually made it."
},
{
"docid": "481902",
"title": "",
"text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine."
},
{
"docid": "318148",
"title": "",
"text": "Most people will never need to pay federal gift taxes. The federal gift taxes start after giving away 5.34 million over the course of your life. This number is adjusted annually for inflation. There are only two states that I know of which impose state gift taxes (Connecticut and Minnesota); in Connecticut, you need to start paying taxes if the lifetime value of your gifts exceed two million. In Minnesota, it starts at 1 million. The federal tax is paid for by the person making the gift, unless other arrangements are made. There is an annual exclusion amount of approximately $14,000. You can give up to this amount to any number of recipients and it is not considered taxable. Therefore, when you give $100 to someone, it is not a taxable event. If you do make a gift to an individual in excess of 14k, you'll need to file a gift tax return (IRS Form 709). When you file form 709, you won't need to pay taxes until the 5.34 million is exceeded. Instead, you can claim an exemption. Since most people don't exceed that amount, its rare to ever pay taxes even when exceeding the annual exclusion amount. The annual exclusion amount is adjusted each year for inflation."
},
{
"docid": "195067",
"title": "",
"text": "The interest that you are proposing to pay your MIL is actually quite low compared to even extremely conservative investing which easily earns 7% or more with quantifiable low risk. You claim that it would be no risk, but what would happen if you lost your job? The risk she faces is more or less exactly what a bank would experience while giving the loan, or in other words it is pretty much whatever your credit score says. Even worse, she does not have a large pool of investments to distribute this risk like a bank would. Making loans this large in a family situation is a recipe for disaster. Taking a huge risk with the relationship your wife has with her mother over three points of interest is exceptionally unwise. Are these private or federal student loans? Federal student loan debt is some of the safest to carry due to its income based repayment plans and eventual loan forgiveness after 25 years. Have you investigated income based repayment options?"
},
{
"docid": "464204",
"title": "",
"text": "It is taxable to your brother (assuming he's a US tax resident). Transfer of any amount over $14k per year to any single person (other than spouse) triggers gift tax liability."
},
{
"docid": "103176",
"title": "",
"text": "As far as I know (I am not a tax professional or IFA!) there would be no tax implications or other burden on the recipient of the loan under UK law, even if it ended up being treated as a gift rather than a loan. There are no clauses about money being in the account for 90 days in UK housing transactions, however under money laundering rules your brother's solicitor might need sight of loan agreements to verify where the funds came from (I think it would depend on whether you paid the money to your brother direct, in which case there would be no problem, or if you paid it direct to the solicitor for the purchase). What Canadian law might say about capital gains / inheritance tax (if the Canadian IRS did decide the loan counted as a gift) I have no idea."
},
{
"docid": "214934",
"title": "",
"text": "The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift."
},
{
"docid": "99102",
"title": "",
"text": "Since your question is very particular on the details, I'm assuming you did your research. Unfortunately you won't get a better answer here than what you've found on the Internet already. This is not a clear-cut situation as the situation you're describing has been a source to some confusion. Mainly, the question is whether the US bank account is a tangible asset or not. To the best of my knowledge, this has not yet been settled, so I suggest going to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) who'd advise you the best course of action. I think it would be safer to transfer the money directly from the foreign account to the US beneficiary (although even then, if the IRS decides to start digging, it may claim that you're essentially disguising a transfer from a US account, so I suggest talking to a professional before doing anything). In any case, the US recipient will need to report the gift (if it is $100K or more) using the form 3520 with his/her tax return."
},
{
"docid": "199789",
"title": "",
"text": "The money was sent from my US bank to my father in India Your father can receive unlimited amount of money as GIFT from you. There is no tax implication on this transaction. Related question After 3 years, my father received a note from the income tax dept. asking him to pay income taxes. Possibly because the income does not match and there maybe high value transactions. This should be replied preferably with the help of CA. Now, the CA is asking him to pay tax in the money I transferred. Is that correct? This is incorrect. Please change the CA and get someone competent. If not, what should I or he do in this case? Get guidance from another CA. Your father can establish that this was convenience and show evidence of transfer from you [need bank statements from your bank and Indian bank]. Property registration payments receipts, etc. Or he can also show this as Gift. If required get a gift deed created."
},
{
"docid": "150607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\""
},
{
"docid": "574432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\""
},
{
"docid": "540325",
"title": "",
"text": "You need to report the interest expense, assuming the loans were for your business: You need to report interest expense (only interest, principle is not an expense just as the loan proceeds are not income). The interest expense goes to the appropriate line on your Schedule C or E (depending on whether you used the loan for the online business or the rental). People whom you borrowed from must also report the interest as income to them on their Schedule B. You cannot deduct the interest expense if they don't report it as interest income. If you didn't take the loans for your business then the interest is not deductible. You don't need to report anything. People who lent you money still have to report the interest you paid to them as income on Schedule B. If you paid no interest (free loan) or below/above market interest to a related party (family member), then the imputed interest is considered income to them and gift to you. They need to report it on their Schedule B, and depending on amounts - on a gift tax return. For $1K to $10K loans there probably will be no need in gift tax returns, the exemption is for $14K per year per person. If the imputed interest rules may apply to you, better talk to a licensed tax adviser on how to proceed."
},
{
"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": "331534",
"title": "",
"text": "Firstly, there is also a lifetime gift+estate tax allowance. If the father's estate, including other gifts given in his lifetime, is unlikely to exceed that allowance, it might be simplest simply to give the whole amount now and count it against the allowance. Right now the allowance is $5.34M, but that seems quite a big political football and it's the allowance when you die that matters. Looking back at past values for the allowance, $1M seems like a pretty safe amount to bet on. If you want to avoid/minimize the use of that allowance, I would make a loan structured as a mortgage that will have $14K payments each year (which can then be forgiven). The points in Rick Goldstein's answer about an appropriate rate, and being able to give more if more notional donors and recipients can be used, also apply. So for example in the first year hand over $200K at 3.5% and immediately forgive $14K. The next year, forgive the interest charge of $6.5K and capital of $7.5K. Given the age of the daughter, I guess the father might well die before its all paid off that way, leaving some residue to be forgiven by the estate (and thus potentially incurring estate taxes). There might also be state gift/estate taxes to consider. Edited to reflect 2014 gift and lifetime exclusion limits."
},
{
"docid": "282726",
"title": "",
"text": "I like THEAO's answer above but I would make some changes. Treat this as a gift; not a loan. Having to ask your friend for repayments is likely to become a huge strain on the friendship. Giving them money, whether you decide to do it as a gift or a loan, does not entitle you to then dictate their life. Sitting down with friends and going over their budget until it satisfies you is likely to be stressful for you both and demeaning to them. You can make getting help from a financial advisor/counselor a part of your gift. I would go as far as to suggest paying for that service for your friends as a part of the money you give them. If a few months from now they need more money, you'll have to reassess the situation."
},
{
"docid": "200425",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Any inward remittance received by your Parents cannot be treated as \"\"Income\"\" as per the definitaion. This can at best be treated as \"\"Gift\"\". However in India there is No Gift tax for certain relations and there is no ceiling on the amount. In your case gifting of money by son to father or viceversa is allowed without any limits and tax implication. However if you father were to invest this money in his name and make gains, the gains would be taxable. However if the Money is being transfered with specific purpose such as to buy a property, etc make sure you have the Bank give your dad an certificate of Inward remittance. This is also advisable even otherwise, the Inwared Remittance certificate from Bank certifies that the credit entry in the account is because or funds comming into India and if the tax authorities were to question the large amount of credits, it would be proof that it is due to Inward remittance and not due to say a sale of property by your dad Helpful Links: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tax/gift-tax-whatsa-gift_664238.html http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/blnri/exp-tax.htm Edit 1: What you father does with the money is treated as EXPENSE, ie spends on day to day expense or pays off your Loans or Pay off his loans have no relevance from a Tax Prespective in India. The only issue comes in say you have transfered the funds to buy a property and there was no purpose of remittance specified by Bank's letter and one want to reptriate this funds back to US, then its an issue. If you transfer the funds directly to your Loan account again there is no tax implication to you in India as you are NRI.\""
},
{
"docid": "142613",
"title": "",
"text": "For cross-border transactions like this you should really take advice from an accountant or lawyer who specialises in them, because there may be tax treaties between the two that complicate the situation. However, in general borrowing money doesn't have tax implications in itself, and there's no limit as such. You do need to consider the following points: If this is zero or less than you could plausibly get commercially, your friend is effectively giving you the difference between the interest rates. If your friend in Korea has a connection to the US she or he may be subject to the gift tax. In practice this only matters if the total amount of gifts they give to anyone over their lifetime plus the size of their estate over their lifetime is large. Non US-persons are exempt though if the amounts are large enough they may need to be reported. Financial institutions are generally required to report large international transactions (typical thresholds are around $10,000) for scrutiny by the government, in case the transaction is related to something illegal. This shouldn't be a problem in itself but you should be aware it'll happen. It shouldn't make any difference how you transfer the money, but it would be wise to get as much documentation as possible in case of later questions. The best place to get further advice would be the US bank you'll be transferring the money into initially. This is really a question for a lawyer given the cross-border nature of the transaction, but you and your friend should sign a contract specifying how and when the loan will be repaid. Your friend should also consider setting up the loan as a mortgage and taking a charge on your home. Even if your friend trusts you, a charge on the home will protect him or her in the event of you having financial problems and another creditor laying claim to the home."
}
] |
5231 | Where to find CSV or JSON data for publicly traded companies listed with their IPO date? | [
{
"docid": "146188",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a list to Yahoo! Finance API. Not sure how much longer this will be support though: https://code.google.com/p/yahoo-finance-managed/wiki/YahooFinanceAPIs"
}
] | [
{
"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": "481544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \"\"people from the company\"\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\""
},
{
"docid": "298666",
"title": "",
"text": "\"We're not in Bubble #2, There is another land rush in the web due to how easy it is to get in and how everywhere else is terrible to work at this moment. Groupon is the big outlier b/c it's a sales company and not a tech company. Facebook (which I personally hate but am forced to use it) is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, all companies with stock are the same way. Will it have a market cap of $100B, you bet! There are a few once in a decade companies that will do something uniqure very very well. Think Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco. Facebook IMO is a walled garden, where your information is free to enter but forbidden to leave. Your data is their data, your web habits are known to them and are tracked by them. They know more about your like's dislikes, web habits than you yourself do. Damn! That's some powerful shit that people who want to peddle anything and everything to you will want. You are actively being tracked by each \"\"like\"\" button you come across on the web. Now for this whole Facebook IPO, Google has shown the power of the tech IPO post Bubble #1 in 2004. Well guess what Wall Street/Private Equity/Hedge Funds/Global Captial wants in! That's easy money to them, it doesn't want to be left out in another bubble, another hit, whatever you want to call it. That drives up the initial offering price, more media, more exposure, more demand, etc. So now Facebook has this hugely valuable database of individuals that it owns and doesn't share to anyone else and a huge demand for it.\""
},
{
"docid": "82113",
"title": "",
"text": "Sure they can (most publicly traded banks at least) - and they do it a lot. Many banks have a proprietary trading desk, or Prop desk, where traders are buying and selling shares of publicly traded companies on behalf of the bank, with the bank's own money. This is as opposed to regular trading desks where the banks trade on behalf of their customers."
},
{
"docid": "337133",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is possible to make a REST API call providing the ISIN to get the ticker in the response: Python code for getting ticker for ISIN=US4592001014: import requests url = 'https://api.openfigi.com/v1/mapping' headers = {'Content-Type':'text/json', 'X-OPENFIGI-APIKEY':'myKey' } payload = '[ {\"\"idType\"\":\"\"ID_ISIN\"\",\"\"idValue\"\":\"\"US4592001014\"\"}]' r = requests.post(url, data=payload, headers=headers)\""
},
{
"docid": "526073",
"title": "",
"text": "Publicly traded companies perform dilution via an FPO (Follow-up Public Offer). It is a process similar to IPO, with announcements, prospectus, etc. You will know ahead of time when that happen. Stocks traded OTC are not required to file a lot of regulatory documents that publicly traded stocks are required to file, and may not disclose dilutions or additional issues. By buying OTC you agree to these terms. You will probably get a notice and a chance to vote on that in your proxy statement, but that happens when you already own the stock."
},
{
"docid": "154525",
"title": "",
"text": "You would have to compare your backtesting to what you will be doing in real trading, and try to have the backtesting as close to your real trading as possible. Note: you may never get the backtesting to match your real trading exactly but you need to get as close as possible. The whole purpose of backtesting is to check if your trading strategies - your signals, entries and exits, and your stops - are profitable over various market conditions. As you would be using actual closes to do your real trading you should be using this to also do your backtesting. Rather than using adjusted data to get an idea of your total return from your backtesting, you can always add the value of the dividends and other corporate actions to the results from using the actual data. You may even find a way to add any dividends and other corporate action to your results automatically, i.e. any dividend amount added to your total return if the stock is held during the ex-dividend date. If you are using adjusted data in your backtesting this may affect any stops you have placed, i.e. it may cause your stop to be triggered earlier or later than in real trading. So you will need to determine how you will treat your stops in real trading. Will you adjust them when there is corporate action such as dividends? Or will you leave them constant until actual prices have gone up? If you will be leaving your stops constant then you should definitely be using actual data in your backtesting to better match your real trading."
},
{
"docid": "295993",
"title": "",
"text": "ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information."
},
{
"docid": "496921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\""
},
{
"docid": "481203",
"title": "",
"text": "Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies"
},
{
"docid": "38906",
"title": "",
"text": "Some banks would allow you to export your transactions as CSV (they call it Excel export, but in many cases it's actually just CSV). However, I would not expect any bank to bother with creating anything like command-line access - return on such investment would be too low. There are other ways to get information out of the banks, I'm sure - providers like Yodelee must be using something to fetch financial data - but those usually not for general public access. Also, you can use something like mint.com to aggregate you banking data if you bank doesn't do good export and then export it from there. They have CSV export too. If you need to do any actions though, I don't think there's anything like you are looking for."
},
{
"docid": "111281",
"title": "",
"text": "For press releases about economic data, the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release page is helpful. Depending on the series, you could also look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release page. For time series of both historical and present data, the St. Louis Federal Reserve maintains a database such data, including numerous measures of GDP, called FRED. They list nearly 15,000 series related to GDP alone. FRED is extremely useful because it allows you to make graphs that indicate areas of recession, like this: On the series' homepage, there's a bold link on the left side to download the data. If you simply need the most recent data, it's listed below the graph on that page. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis, you can use the Bureau of Economic Analysis as well, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, which are most of the numbers that feed into the calculation of GDP. FRED also archives some of these data. Both FRED and the BEA compile data on numerous other economic benchmarks as well. Other general sources for a wide range of announcements are the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal economic calendars. These provide the dates of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, crude inventories, etc. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. This is a great way to learn about various announcements and how they affect the markets; for example, the somewhat disappointing durable orders announcement recently pushed markets down a few points. For Europe, look at Eurostat. On the left side of the page, they list links to common data, including GDP. They list the latest releases on the home page that I previously linked to. For the sake of keeping this question short, I'm lumping the rest of the world into this paragraph. Data for many other countries is maintained by their governments or central banks in a similar fashion. The World Bank's databank also has relevant data like Gross National Income (GNI), which isn't identical to GDP, but it's another (less common) macroeconomic indicator. You can also look at the economic calendar on livecharts.co.uk or xe.com, which list events for the US, Europe, Australasia, and some Latin American countries. If you're only interested in the US, the Bloomberg or Yahoo calendars may have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but if you're interested in following how global markets like currency markets respond to new information, a global economic calendar is a must. Dailyfx.com also has a global economic calendar that, according to them, is specifically geared towards events that affect the forex market. As I said, governments and central banks compile a lot of this data, so to make searching easier, here are a few links to statistical agencies and central banks for major countries. I compiled this list a while ago on my personal machine, so although I think all the links are accurate, leave a comment if something isn't quite right. Statistics Australia / Brazil / Canada / Canada / China / Eurostat / France / Germany / IMF / Japan / Mexico / OECD / Thailand / UK / US Central banks Australia / Brazil / Canada / Chile / China / ECB / Hungary / India / Indonesia / Israel / Japan / Mexico / Norway / Russia / Sweden / Switzerland / Thailand / UK / US"
},
{
"docid": "36193",
"title": "",
"text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade."
},
{
"docid": "501504",
"title": "",
"text": "What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience."
},
{
"docid": "539552",
"title": "",
"text": "Reuters has a service you can subscribe to that will give you lots of Financial information that is not readily available in common feeds. One of the things you can find is the listing/delist dates of stocks. There are tools to build custom reports. That would be a report you could write. You can probably get the data for free through their rss feeds and on their website, but the custom reports is a paid feature. FWIW re-listing(listings that have been delisted but return to a status that they can be listed again) is pretty rare. And I can not think of too many(any actually) penny stocks that have grown to be listed on a major exchange."
},
{
"docid": "490798",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\""
},
{
"docid": "12027",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air."
},
{
"docid": "593378",
"title": "",
"text": "To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals. One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates. An example of a play on 'smart money': S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500. Changes to the list trigger 'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/"
},
{
"docid": "182226",
"title": "",
"text": "Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry."
}
] |
5241 | Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | [
{
"docid": "376123",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\""
}
] | [
{
"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": "15487",
"title": "",
"text": "You should plan on your monthly payment (Principal + Interest + Escrow) being a conservative percentage of your take home pay. No matter your cash savings, if your housing is 60% of your take home pay you are going to have trouble keeping up on the house. My target for housing is that a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage should be under 25% of my take home pay. For some people, they find that too conservative. I think the exact percent is a risk/reward preference. Some people like the 25% number but look at a 30 year mortgage. Whatever you do, don't buy a house at the limit of what the bank thinks you can afford :) Historically, they have been more willing for me to spend my money than I have been."
},
{
"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": "115802",
"title": "",
"text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend."
},
{
"docid": "23533",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership. I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment. One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat. I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory. Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee. at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight. If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age."
},
{
"docid": "441536",
"title": "",
"text": "When clearing funds from the sale of a home the following usually happens (USA): The left over amount is what you get. Your real estate agent should be able to go over all of that with you. If they haven't then you need to get a better real estate agent. Assuming you haven't listed the house on the market yet then you should probably start by finding out what the pay off amount is on your existing home (call your mortgage company), then look at the prices of recently sold homes in your neighborhood for a comparable house (same style/square footage/amenities) to see what it sold for. Now you will know exactly what all those costs are prior to sitting down and signing the paperwork for the sale during the closing proceedings. If for some reason the amount is less than what you owe on it then the mortgage company would have to be involved for you to even sell it. If the real estate market in your area is somewhat normal, you bought the house on a standard fixed rate mortgage, you've been paying faithfully these past 17 years, you haven't gotten a home equity line of credit (HELOC) loan (or otherwise cashed out of your equity at any point), you've kept up the maintenance of the place and there are no liens against the property (ie: unpaid taxes, lawsuits, etc) then it is highly likely you will get money from the sale of the house. However we (internet people) don't know any of those details; so talk to a good real estate agent."
},
{
"docid": "367103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depending on where you live in the UK, buying a house sooner might be a better option. I would echo the advice about putting some money away into a \"\"rainy day\"\" fund etc. above but I know that in my area house prices are going up by around 7% per year. I bought a house two years ago and I'm paying 4% interest on my mortgage so I'm effectively making money by owning my house. Given that you want to buy a house soonish, if your money sits in an account somewhere making no interest, you're effectively losing 7% of your cash each year by not keeping up with house prices, meaning you'll be able to afford a smaller house with the same money. Do bear in mind though that buying a house costs around £4k in lawyers fees, surveys, mortgage setup fees etc. and selling a house can be more since estate agents will take a % of the sale cost. If you live somewhere where house prices are not increasing as quickly then this will not be as good an option than if you live in e.g. London where house prices are currently skyrocketing. If you don't want to live in the house, you may be able to do a buy-to-let as an investment. Generally the rent will cover the mortgage payments and probably a letting agent/property management company's fees, so while you won't see any actual net income, the people renting will be paying the mortgage off and you'll be building equity on the home. It's not entirely without risk though as tenants can trash homes etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "420707",
"title": "",
"text": "It seems very risky have all of your net worth in this one home. If I were to buy the house, I'm not sure I would put that much down, consider 20% and keep cash on hand, in retirement assets, etc. I would look at how much a mortgage, plus interest, taxes, insurance, etc. would cost with 50% down and with 20% down and see how that impacts your cash flow. Renting may make more sense, it's hard to tell without more specifics (NYTimes Rent/Buy calculator is a nice tool), but regardless, I would not want to have so much net worth tied into one asset and so would opt for less money down if I were to buy. Focus on rebuilding some retirement assets."
},
{
"docid": "128698",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you."
},
{
"docid": "227485",
"title": "",
"text": "No, it is never impossible to get credit so long as there are no price controls or quotas. In most of the United States, the impetus for housing is so strong that it's one sector of credit that has nearly no price regulation, price in this case being interest rates. Corporate banks will not touch you now because Dodd-Frank now makes them liable to you and investors if you default on the mortgage. Also, Fannie & Freddie, who ultimately finance most mortgages in the US now require banks to buy back loans if they fail, so banks are only financing the most creditworthy. All is not lost because markets are like rivers if not fully dammed: they find a way through. In your case, you can get a fully-financed mortgage if you're willing to pay interest rates probably double what you could otherwise get in the market with good credit. If the foreclosure process is quick and benefits the lender more in your state, the interest rate will be even lower. Your creditors will most likely be individuals you find at mortgage investment clubs and religious institutions. If you shop around, you'll be surprised at how low a rate you might get. Also, since the cost of your prospective home is so low, it's very easy for an investor flush with cash and few investments to take a flier on a mother committed to her children who only needs $50,000. The FHA has been vastly expanded, and since your individual credit is clean, there may be a chance to get financing through it, but be prepared for red tape."
},
{
"docid": "341348",
"title": "",
"text": "This is how its done I am a certain french bank, aka sg I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88. I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS. So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years. remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits. Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense. Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on. You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on."
},
{
"docid": "352178",
"title": "",
"text": "\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\""
},
{
"docid": "241661",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\""
},
{
"docid": "390976",
"title": "",
"text": "You can definitely get access to cash during the selling of your home and buying of a new one. Think of the home sale and buy as two distinct transactions. As long as your mortgage qualification doesn't depend on all the proceeds from the first sale being rolled into the new mortgage, you'll be fine."
},
{
"docid": "178496",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates \"\"unwise\"\" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms. But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do. You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets. To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one. When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to. Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash. DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on. I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable. And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime.\""
},
{
"docid": "440522",
"title": "",
"text": "Understandably, it appears as if one must construct the flows oneself because of the work involved to include every loan variation. First, it would be best to distinguish between cash and accrued, otherwise known as the economic, costs. The cash cost is, as you've identified, the payment. This is a reality for cash management, and it's wise that you wish to track it. However, by accruals, the only economic cost involved in the payment is the interest. The reason is because the rest of the payment flows from one form of asset to another, so if out of a $1,000 payment, $100 is principal repayment, you have merely traded $100 of cash for $100 of house. The cash costs will be accounted for on the cash flow statement while the accrued or economic costs will be accounted on the income statement. It appears as if you've accounted for this properly. However, for the resolution that you desire, the accounts must first flow through the income statement followed next instead of directly from assets to liabilities. This is where you can get a sense of the true costs of the home. To get better accrual resolution, credit cash and debit mortgage interest expense & principal repayment. Book the mortgage interest expense on the income statement and then cancel the principal repayment account with the loan account. The principal repayment should not be treated as an expense; however, the cash payment that pays down the mortgage balance should be booked so that it will appear on the cash flow statement. Because you weren't doing this before, and you were debiting the entire payment off of the loan, you should probably notice your booked loan account diverging from the actual. This proper booking will resolve that. When you are comfortable with booking the payments, you can book unrealized gains and losses by marking the house to market in this statement to get a better understanding of your financial position. The cash flow statement with proper bookings should show how the cash has flowed, so if it is according to standards, household operations should show a positive flow from labor/investments less the amount of interest expense while financing will show a negative flow from principal repayment. Investing due to the home should show no change due to mortgage payments because the house has already been acquired, thus there was a large outflow when cash was paid to acquire the home. The program should give some way to classify accounts so that they are either operational, investing, or financing. All income & expenses are operational. All investments such as equities, credit assets, and the home are investing. All liabilities are financing. To book the installment payment $X which consists of $Y in interest and $Z in principal: To resolve the reduction in principal: As long as the accounts are properly classified, GnuCash probably does the rest for you, but if not, to resolve the expense: Finally, net income is resolved: My guess is that GnuCash derives the cash flow statement indirectly, but you can do the entry by simply: In this case, it happily resembles the first accrued entry, but with cash, that's all that is necessary by the direct method."
},
{
"docid": "466587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "453305",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a \"\"cheap\"\" home to cost 20% or less of your income, \"\"affordable\"\" between 20-30% and \"\"not affordable\"\" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The \"\"cost\"\" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for.\""
},
{
"docid": "310159",
"title": "",
"text": "New Mortgage Rules - Special report! Please read in full and share this with your friends and family today! You will now qualify for significantly less: -A family with $65,000 in income and no dept with 5% down could previously buy a home for about $525,000 -Now they can only spend about $410,000 READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://ownyourlife.ca/mortgages-marketing/new-mortgage-rules-special-report.html"
}
] |
5241 | Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | [
{
"docid": "234286",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "372921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "584278",
"title": "",
"text": "Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house. To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc. Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down. The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking."
},
{
"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": "208645",
"title": "",
"text": "Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.)"
},
{
"docid": "115802",
"title": "",
"text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend."
},
{
"docid": "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": "404868",
"title": "",
"text": "Emergency funds are good to keep yourself out of debt, for whatever reason. Job loss is a big place where an emergency fund can help you out. It buys you time to find another job before hauling out the credit cards for your groceries, falling behind on your mortgage and car payments, etc. But it can just as easily be used for major car repairs, serious medical issues, home repairs, etc. ... anything that needs to be done quickly, and isn't a discretionary item. The bigger your cash reserves, the better, especially now that the economy is bad."
},
{
"docid": "85697",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer"
},
{
"docid": "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": "367103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depending on where you live in the UK, buying a house sooner might be a better option. I would echo the advice about putting some money away into a \"\"rainy day\"\" fund etc. above but I know that in my area house prices are going up by around 7% per year. I bought a house two years ago and I'm paying 4% interest on my mortgage so I'm effectively making money by owning my house. Given that you want to buy a house soonish, if your money sits in an account somewhere making no interest, you're effectively losing 7% of your cash each year by not keeping up with house prices, meaning you'll be able to afford a smaller house with the same money. Do bear in mind though that buying a house costs around £4k in lawyers fees, surveys, mortgage setup fees etc. and selling a house can be more since estate agents will take a % of the sale cost. If you live somewhere where house prices are not increasing as quickly then this will not be as good an option than if you live in e.g. London where house prices are currently skyrocketing. If you don't want to live in the house, you may be able to do a buy-to-let as an investment. Generally the rent will cover the mortgage payments and probably a letting agent/property management company's fees, so while you won't see any actual net income, the people renting will be paying the mortgage off and you'll be building equity on the home. It's not entirely without risk though as tenants can trash homes etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "116420",
"title": "",
"text": "Short answer: the CD can be considered as part of the down payment calculations. they will want a plan to cash them in the last days or weeks before settlement. When approving you for a mortgage they will be looking at: They now know what you can afford to dedicate to this new property every month. They take into account principal, interest, taxes, insurance and the HOA fee. They will then look at how much money you will use as a down payment. They want this money to exist before applying, and they will check on its existence in the last days before settlement. The best is cash sitting in a bank. But it can also be money in savings bonds, or a CD, but they will want a plan for cashing that in just before settlement. They won't be comfortable with it being in a volatile account such as stocks especially if the current balance is exactly what you need for a mortgage that won't be closed for 3 more months. Because people use money they borrow from their 401K for a home purchase, it is possible to use money from volatile account. They will want to see a plan for getting money from these accounts just before settlement."
},
{
"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": "445887",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\""
},
{
"docid": "466587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "23533",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership. I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment. One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat. I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory. Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee. at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight. If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age."
},
{
"docid": "78176",
"title": "",
"text": "Take the long term view. Build up the cash. Once you have enough cash in the bank, you don't need a credit score. With 6 months living expenses in the bank after paying 20% down on a small house, he should have no issues getting a reasonably priced mortgage. However, if he waited just a bit longer he might buy the same house outright with cash. When I ran the computations for myself many years ago, it would have taken me half as long to save the money and pay cash for my home as it did for me to take a mortgage and pay it off."
},
{
"docid": "15487",
"title": "",
"text": "You should plan on your monthly payment (Principal + Interest + Escrow) being a conservative percentage of your take home pay. No matter your cash savings, if your housing is 60% of your take home pay you are going to have trouble keeping up on the house. My target for housing is that a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage should be under 25% of my take home pay. For some people, they find that too conservative. I think the exact percent is a risk/reward preference. Some people like the 25% number but look at a 30 year mortgage. Whatever you do, don't buy a house at the limit of what the bank thinks you can afford :) Historically, they have been more willing for me to spend my money than I have been."
},
{
"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."
}
] |
5241 | Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | [
{
"docid": "322157",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with \"\"A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.\"\" So, the update to the first comment should be \"\"A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.\"\" Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan? I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "208645",
"title": "",
"text": "Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.)"
},
{
"docid": "97275",
"title": "",
"text": "That's an important number when considering rent vs home ownership. If you own a home, you are much less likely to move for a better job, because of all the material and emotional investment into the house. So that 50% of salary difference (about $2000 a month if we take average salary of $48k), should be added to the monthly mortgage bill when comparing it to the rent."
},
{
"docid": "544962",
"title": "",
"text": "So obviously, realtors are not economists and have a strong bias here. A lot of actual [economists](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/) think the mortgage deduction is nonsense and doesn't actually promote home ownership. Countries without the deduction have about the same ownership rates as the U.S. Worth noting that this proposal doesn't actually scrap the mortgage deduction, it just makes the standard deduction bigger. Some people will end up better off with the new standard deduction, and those with more expensive homes can keep using the mortgage deduction. This is one of the few proposals coming out of the Republican congress that actually helps poor people more than rich people."
},
{
"docid": "15487",
"title": "",
"text": "You should plan on your monthly payment (Principal + Interest + Escrow) being a conservative percentage of your take home pay. No matter your cash savings, if your housing is 60% of your take home pay you are going to have trouble keeping up on the house. My target for housing is that a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage should be under 25% of my take home pay. For some people, they find that too conservative. I think the exact percent is a risk/reward preference. Some people like the 25% number but look at a 30 year mortgage. Whatever you do, don't buy a house at the limit of what the bank thinks you can afford :) Historically, they have been more willing for me to spend my money than I have been."
},
{
"docid": "178496",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates \"\"unwise\"\" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms. But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do. You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets. To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one. When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to. Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash. DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on. I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable. And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime.\""
},
{
"docid": "56794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity). This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this. :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can \"\"take it out\"\" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to \"\"profit.\"\" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so \"\"cashing out\"\" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "283066",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\""
},
{
"docid": "115802",
"title": "",
"text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend."
},
{
"docid": "246882",
"title": "",
"text": "I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating."
},
{
"docid": "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": "61936",
"title": "",
"text": "Sure! Started working since I was 12, used that money to buy a car, and was working full time starting at 15 years old. By 17 had two full time jobs and banked all that money, besides buying a car. At 18 fulfilled my dream and was hired as a police officer. Did the academy for 6 months, saving all of that money to buy a trailer to live in for cheap. Max out pay for my department was 5 years, so by 23 years old I was making 68,000 a year. With overtime and details included( I basically worked anytime I could, 8 hour shift with either an 8 hour detail or double shift) usually kept one day off, working my other day off. My take home for the year after taxes was somewhere around 90k give or take, with my living expenses barely passing 25k a year. Banked all that money for years. When I hit 25ish I got together with my now wife, also an officer making the same amount. She also received about 300k from a settlement. So with both of our salaries plus money invested since I was about 14, annual take home was about 200k. Saved for 2 more years and at 28, used the 300k to buy a house and pay off any vehicles and credit card debt. Paid cash for the house so no mortgage, no car payments, just utilities and taxes for the year. With the budget set we were able to retire living just like we were. There is a lot more to it but that's the quick summary!"
},
{
"docid": "264586",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity. A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash. Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by. In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage. At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender. Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score. The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages. In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a \"\"freebie\"\" in a way. You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford. Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "113189",
"title": "",
"text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs...."
},
{
"docid": "554522",
"title": "",
"text": "I'll add this to what the other answers said: if you are a renter now, and the real estate you want to buy is a house to live in, then it may be worth it - in a currency devaluation, rent may increase faster than your income. If you pay cash for the home, you also have the added benefit of considerably reducing your monthly housing costs. This makes you more resilient to whatever the future may throw at you - a lower paying job, for instance, or high inflation that eats away at the value of your income. If you get a mortgage, then make sure to get a fixed interest rate. In this case, it protects you somewhat from high inflation because your mortgage payment stays the same, while what you would have had to pay in rent keeps going up an up. In both cases there is also taxes and insurance, of course. And those would go up with inflation. Finally, do make sure to purchase sensibly. A good rule of thumb on how much you can afford to pay for a home is 2.5x - 3.5x your annual income. I do realize that there are some areas where it's common for people to buy homes at a far greater multiple, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do. Also: I'll second what @sheegaon said; if you're really worried about the euro collapsing, it might give you some peace of mind to move some money into UK Gilts or US Treasuries. Just keep in mind that currencies do move against each other, so you'd see the euro value of those investments fluctuate all the time."
},
{
"docid": "310159",
"title": "",
"text": "New Mortgage Rules - Special report! Please read in full and share this with your friends and family today! You will now qualify for significantly less: -A family with $65,000 in income and no dept with 5% down could previously buy a home for about $525,000 -Now they can only spend about $410,000 READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://ownyourlife.ca/mortgages-marketing/new-mortgage-rules-special-report.html"
},
{
"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": "466587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "420707",
"title": "",
"text": "It seems very risky have all of your net worth in this one home. If I were to buy the house, I'm not sure I would put that much down, consider 20% and keep cash on hand, in retirement assets, etc. I would look at how much a mortgage, plus interest, taxes, insurance, etc. would cost with 50% down and with 20% down and see how that impacts your cash flow. Renting may make more sense, it's hard to tell without more specifics (NYTimes Rent/Buy calculator is a nice tool), but regardless, I would not want to have so much net worth tied into one asset and so would opt for less money down if I were to buy. Focus on rebuilding some retirement assets."
}
] |
5241 | Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | [
{
"docid": "344740",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "322804",
"title": "",
"text": "Unfortunately, what you are finding is that your past decisions to take on debt have limited your choices now. Learn from this fact and choose not to go further into debt. Your condo will become a burden if you don't have the liquid funds to maintain the property, keep the mortgage current, and hedge against any other significant life events. You already have almost no financial margin. These steps will almost guarantee that you will enjoy your house and have a worry/stress free experience. You make plenty of money for you to complete this cycle in a handful of years and be ready to buy. Also, don't give yourself false either/or choices. You have options. Our apartment is way too small for just the two of us, much less a child. We'd have to move before we had a child and we'd like to live in our own house when we do. Not true. Rent a cheaper apartment further outside the city, which will also be larger. It probably won't be as nice as the one you have now. Buy a car for cash under $5000. It is a sacrifice for few years while you work for your dream home. You already know this is a bad decision. Continuing down this path will leave you with the same frustrations 10 years from now. Good Luck!"
},
{
"docid": "596111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\""
},
{
"docid": "404868",
"title": "",
"text": "Emergency funds are good to keep yourself out of debt, for whatever reason. Job loss is a big place where an emergency fund can help you out. It buys you time to find another job before hauling out the credit cards for your groceries, falling behind on your mortgage and car payments, etc. But it can just as easily be used for major car repairs, serious medical issues, home repairs, etc. ... anything that needs to be done quickly, and isn't a discretionary item. The bigger your cash reserves, the better, especially now that the economy is bad."
},
{
"docid": "584278",
"title": "",
"text": "Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house. To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc. Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down. The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking."
},
{
"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": "532667",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level \"\"paying rent\"\" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a \"\"4.16\"\" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a \"\"20\"\", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment. The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses.\""
},
{
"docid": "445887",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\""
},
{
"docid": "115802",
"title": "",
"text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend."
},
{
"docid": "128698",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you."
},
{
"docid": "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": "148299",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\""
},
{
"docid": "397186",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Usually not the total interest, but all interest accrued and unpaid to date. This is called the \"\"Loan Payoff Amount\"\", and repays the bank their principal plus the \"\"true\"\" cost of capital on that principal since your last amortized payment (which is probably never, since you just signed the loan papers). There may also be a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\". This is something that should have been disclosed to you if it exists, but it's fairly rare in U.S. mortgages anymore. The theory is, the bank got the money they paid you at the start of the loan by selling a bond package backed by your mortgage and others of similar credit history and/or about the same time (a \"\"mortgage-backed security\"\"). By turning around and paying early, you meet your obligation, but the bank is now stuck with at least 10 years of quarterly coupon payments on that bond, which they were expecting to pay using your mortgage interest. For their trouble, you would pay an additional amount that either covers their \"\"call price\"\" on the portion of the bonds used for your principal, or simply buys them the time to re-issue a new mortgage using your repaid principal to back the bond again. In the modern housing market, such a prepayment penalty is very rare, because so many lenders are willing to give you a mortgage without one, and so many buyers balk at the thought of having to pay more if they pay early; the whole point is to pay less by paying early. Just something to look up in your mortgage documentation.\""
},
{
"docid": "113189",
"title": "",
"text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs...."
},
{
"docid": "78176",
"title": "",
"text": "Take the long term view. Build up the cash. Once you have enough cash in the bank, you don't need a credit score. With 6 months living expenses in the bank after paying 20% down on a small house, he should have no issues getting a reasonably priced mortgage. However, if he waited just a bit longer he might buy the same house outright with cash. When I ran the computations for myself many years ago, it would have taken me half as long to save the money and pay cash for my home as it did for me to take a mortgage and pay it off."
},
{
"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": "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": "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": "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": "352178",
"title": "",
"text": "\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\""
}
] |
5241 | Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | [
{
"docid": "27489",
"title": "",
"text": "I wondered about this problem too, so I looked into the maths and made this app :- http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ (It uses the free Wolfram computable-document format (CDF) Player.) If you try it out you can see what conditions favour renting vs buying. My own conclusion was to aim to buy a property outright upon reaching retirement age, if not sooner. Example This example compares buying a £400,000 house with renting for £1,000 a month while depositing equivalent amounts (in savings) to total the same monthly outgoings as the buyer. Mortgage rate, deposit rate, property appreciation and rent inflation can be variously specified. The example mortgage term is 20 years. As you can see the buyer and renter come out about even after the mortgage term, but the buyer comes off better after that, (having no more mortgage to pay). Of course, the rent to live in a £400,000 house would probably be more than £1,000 but this case shows an equivalence point."
}
] | [
{
"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": "128698",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you."
},
{
"docid": "85697",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer"
},
{
"docid": "549270",
"title": "",
"text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds."
},
{
"docid": "111454",
"title": "",
"text": "You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%. But how much of that do the two of you actually own? If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower. If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity. And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity. It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property. With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan. You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance. A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan. If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property. If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back. This is your fewest strings option. Let's say that you have no mortgage now. So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property. It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property. That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage. You should be able to get a good rate. It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income. If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you."
},
{
"docid": "281675",
"title": "",
"text": "Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of. These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly. Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market. While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers. There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash. Namely, how was that cash invested? If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit. If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then? Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in?"
},
{
"docid": "453305",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a \"\"cheap\"\" home to cost 20% or less of your income, \"\"affordable\"\" between 20-30% and \"\"not affordable\"\" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The \"\"cost\"\" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for.\""
},
{
"docid": "490888",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\""
},
{
"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": "262011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks: Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem? Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences. Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.\""
},
{
"docid": "78176",
"title": "",
"text": "Take the long term view. Build up the cash. Once you have enough cash in the bank, you don't need a credit score. With 6 months living expenses in the bank after paying 20% down on a small house, he should have no issues getting a reasonably priced mortgage. However, if he waited just a bit longer he might buy the same house outright with cash. When I ran the computations for myself many years ago, it would have taken me half as long to save the money and pay cash for my home as it did for me to take a mortgage and pay it off."
},
{
"docid": "167356",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the logic in your example demonstrates it is silly to make a decision for tax benefits alone. Saving 75 is much preferred to a cash outflow of 100 less tax savings of 25. To answer your question, paying mortgage interest represents the fee for the cheapest money most people will ever access, which in itself is a benefit (e.g. renting vs buying). The benefits are maximized when the aggregate of appreciation, inflation, tax savings exceeds total interest expense."
},
{
"docid": "577951",
"title": "",
"text": "Risk is the problem, as others have pointed out. Your fixed mortgage interest rate is for a set period of time only. Let's say your 3% might be good for five years, because that's typical of fixed-rate mortages in Canada. So, what happens in five years if your investment has dropped 50% due to a prolonged bear market, and interest rates have since moved up from 3% to 8%? Your investment would be underwater, and you wouldn't have enough to pay off the loan and exit the failed strategy. Rather, you might just be stuck with renewing the mortage at a rate that makes the strategy far less attractive, being more likely to lose money in the long run than to earn any. Leverage, or borrowing to invest, amplifies your risk considerably. If you invest your own money in the market, you might lose what you started with, but if you borrow to invest, you might lose much more than you started with. There's also one very specific issue with the example investment you've proposed: You would be borrowing Canadian dollars but investing in an index fund of U.S.-based companies that trade in U.S. dollars. Even if the index has positive returns in U.S. dollar terms, you might end up losing money if the Canadian dollar strengthens vs. the U.S. dollar. It has happened before, multiple times. So, while this strategy has worked wonderfully in the past, it has also failed disastrously in the past. Unless you have a crystal ball, you need to be aware of the various risks and weigh them vs. the potential rewards. There is no free lunch."
},
{
"docid": "491682",
"title": "",
"text": "First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible."
},
{
"docid": "397186",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Usually not the total interest, but all interest accrued and unpaid to date. This is called the \"\"Loan Payoff Amount\"\", and repays the bank their principal plus the \"\"true\"\" cost of capital on that principal since your last amortized payment (which is probably never, since you just signed the loan papers). There may also be a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\". This is something that should have been disclosed to you if it exists, but it's fairly rare in U.S. mortgages anymore. The theory is, the bank got the money they paid you at the start of the loan by selling a bond package backed by your mortgage and others of similar credit history and/or about the same time (a \"\"mortgage-backed security\"\"). By turning around and paying early, you meet your obligation, but the bank is now stuck with at least 10 years of quarterly coupon payments on that bond, which they were expecting to pay using your mortgage interest. For their trouble, you would pay an additional amount that either covers their \"\"call price\"\" on the portion of the bonds used for your principal, or simply buys them the time to re-issue a new mortgage using your repaid principal to back the bond again. In the modern housing market, such a prepayment penalty is very rare, because so many lenders are willing to give you a mortgage without one, and so many buyers balk at the thought of having to pay more if they pay early; the whole point is to pay less by paying early. Just something to look up in your mortgage documentation.\""
},
{
"docid": "147589",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd suggest buying a used car for cash, car loans are a bad idea. I bought my last car a few years ago for $8k off of craigslist, and it is still running great. Make sure you get a car checked out by a mechanic before buying (usually they'll drop it off at a mechanic you want to have take a look, or perhaps just go with you). My general rule is to not take out loans for anything which decreases in value. So a home mortgage would be fine, a car loan is not a great plan. Buy cash, and save for the next purchase. If you buy a decent used Corolla (or other small import car), you can get it for $8k, it will likely last a few years at least. That could end up costing you less than $200 per month total, or less. Much better deal in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "441536",
"title": "",
"text": "When clearing funds from the sale of a home the following usually happens (USA): The left over amount is what you get. Your real estate agent should be able to go over all of that with you. If they haven't then you need to get a better real estate agent. Assuming you haven't listed the house on the market yet then you should probably start by finding out what the pay off amount is on your existing home (call your mortgage company), then look at the prices of recently sold homes in your neighborhood for a comparable house (same style/square footage/amenities) to see what it sold for. Now you will know exactly what all those costs are prior to sitting down and signing the paperwork for the sale during the closing proceedings. If for some reason the amount is less than what you owe on it then the mortgage company would have to be involved for you to even sell it. If the real estate market in your area is somewhat normal, you bought the house on a standard fixed rate mortgage, you've been paying faithfully these past 17 years, you haven't gotten a home equity line of credit (HELOC) loan (or otherwise cashed out of your equity at any point), you've kept up the maintenance of the place and there are no liens against the property (ie: unpaid taxes, lawsuits, etc) then it is highly likely you will get money from the sale of the house. However we (internet people) don't know any of those details; so talk to a good real estate agent."
},
{
"docid": "510130",
"title": "",
"text": "Well the problem is it's tough for people to get loans through banks and mortgage brokers now. Even if you can afford it on a monthly basis. Investors are paying cash for homes and renting them for more than it would cost people who legitimately need a place to live."
},
{
"docid": "208645",
"title": "",
"text": "Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.)"
}
] |
5254 | How do I calculate the quarterly returns of a stock index? | [
{
"docid": "392851",
"title": "",
"text": "So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "194363",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble."
},
{
"docid": "491358",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\""
},
{
"docid": "511559",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "478291",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\""
},
{
"docid": "178875",
"title": "",
"text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do."
},
{
"docid": "45190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\""
},
{
"docid": "122260",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\""
},
{
"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": "478266",
"title": "",
"text": "You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies."
},
{
"docid": "163354",
"title": "",
"text": "Victor, Yes the drop in price does completely cancel the dividend at first. However, as others have noted, there are other forces working on the price as well. If dividends were pointless then the following scenario would be true: Let's assume, hypothetically, two identical stocks, only one of which pays a 2% annual dividend quarterly. At the end of the year we would expect the share price of the dividend stock to be 2% lower than the non-dividend stock. And an equal investment in both stocks would yield exactly the same amount of money. So that is a hypothetical, and here is real market example: I compared, i.e. took the ratio of Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO) closing price to the S&P 500 Index closing price from sep 9, (2010-2014), after accounting for the VOO 2013 split. The VOO pays a quarterly dividend(about 2%/year), the S&P is an index, hence no dividend. The VOO share price, reduced each quarter by the dividend, still grew more than the S&P each year except 2012 to 2013, but looking at the entire 4yr period the VOO share price grew 80.3987% while S&P grew 80.083% (1/3 of 1% more for VOO). VOO does drop about 1/2% relative to S&P on every ex date, but obviously it makes it up. There are other forces working on VOO. VOO is trade-able, therefore subject to supply/demand pressures, while the S&P 500 is not. So for the VOO ETF the data does not indicate pointless dividends but instead implies dividends are free money. StockCharts.com supports this. S&P500 for last 1244 days (9/8/2010) shows 90% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?%24SPX while VOO for last 1244 days shows 105% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VOO"
},
{
"docid": "66119",
"title": "",
"text": "How can I calculate my currency risk exposure? You own securities that are priced in dollars, so your currency risk is the amount (all else being equal) that your portfolio drops if the dollar depreciates relative to the Euro between now and the time that you plan to cash out your investments. Not all stocks, though, have a high correlation relative to the dollar. Many US companies (e.g. Apple) do a lot of business in foreign countries and do not necessarily move in line with the Dollar. Calculate the correlation (using Excel or other statistical programs) between the returns of your portfolio and the change in FX rate between the Dollar and Euro to see how well your portfolio correlated with that FX rate. That would tell you how much risk you need to mitigate. how can I hedge against it? There are various Currency ETFs that will track the USD/EUR exchange rate, so one option could be to buy some of those to offset your currency risk calculated above. Note that ETFs do have fees associated with them, although they should be fairly small (one I looked at had a 0.4% fee, which isn't terrible but isn't nothing). Also note that there are ETFs that employ currency risk mitigation internally - including one on the Nasdaq 100 . Note that this is NOT a recommendation for this ETF - just letting you know about alternative products that MIGHT meet your needs."
},
{
"docid": "273789",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead."
},
{
"docid": "457584",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "528034",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\""
},
{
"docid": "576008",
"title": "",
"text": "Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market."
},
{
"docid": "43683",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities."
},
{
"docid": "195089",
"title": "",
"text": "Willis Group Holdings Set to Join the S&P 500; Fossil Group to Join S&P MidCap 400; Adeptus Health to Join S&P SmallCap 600 notes in part for the S & P case: Willis Group Holdings plc (NYSE:WSH) will replace Fossil Group Inc. (NASD:FOSL) in the S&P 500, and Fossil Group will replace Towers Watson & Co. (NASD:TW) in the S&P MidCap 400 after the close of trading on Monday, January 4. Willis Group is merging with Towers Watson in a deal expected to be completed on or about that date pending final conditions. Post merger, Willis Group Holdings will change its name to Willis Towers Watson plc and trade under the ticker symbol “WLTW”. Fossil has a market capitalization that is more representative of the midcap market space. As of Jan. 8, Fossil is about $1.44B in market cap and Willis is $21.02B for those wondering. Apple with a market cap of $540.58B is 3.26% of the index making the entire index worth approximately $16,582.21B, so Fossil is worth .00868% of the overall index for those wanting some numbers here. Thus, if a company acquires another and becomes bigger than there can be replacements made in those indices that have an artificial number of small members. Alternatively, a member may be removed for lack of representation where it is just so small compared to other companies that may be a better fit as some indices could be viewed as actively managed in a sense. In contrast, there are indices like those from Russell, known for the Russell 2000 small-cap index: Q: Why don't you reconstitute the indexes more often than once a year? A: Maintaining representative indexes must be weighed against the costs associated with making frequent changes to index constituents (namely, buying and selling stocks). The Russell Indexes are annually reconstituted because our research has shown that this strikes a reasonable balance between accuracy and cost. We originally reconstituted our indexes quarterly, then semi-annually, but found these options to be suboptimal. Our extensive research demonstrates that annual reconstitution accurately represents the capitalization segments and minimizes the turnover required to reflect the segments as they change. Thus there can be different scenarios. Then there can be the effect on index funds when price-weighted indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average has a member that does a stock split that causes some rebalancing too. On the DJIA Divisor: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted index that is calculated by dividing the sum of the prices of the 30 component stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average components) by a number called the DJIA Divisor or Dow Divisor . The index divisor is updated periodically and adjusted to offset the effect of stock splits, bonus issues or any change in the component stocks included in the DJIA. This is done in order to keep the index value consistent."
},
{
"docid": "428315",
"title": "",
"text": "Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all."
}
] |
5254 | How do I calculate the quarterly returns of a stock index? | [
{
"docid": "402466",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "498378",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\""
},
{
"docid": "409156",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Like I said, the heat index is just a \"\"how it feels\"\" calculation. I never said the heat index determines evaporation, just that the calculation for getting the heat index is based on humidity and temperature. The dew point (based on temperature AND humidity) is what governs evaporation. The dew point is the temperature at which water will evaporate given a specific relative humidity. In other words, you can't calculate the dew point unless you know the humidity. If your skin temp is lower than the dew point, water will condense on your skin. It doesn't matter if other things are cooler than your skin. Water may condense on those items more quickly, but it will still condense on you.\""
},
{
"docid": "214522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Because they track an index. Edited: The definition of the word in this case meaning \"\"something used or serving to point out; a sign, token, or indication\"\" from Meaning #3 I presume therefore you are asking what an index is? There are many variations of what makes up an Index but in short it is a representation of some part of a market. An extremely simplistic calculation would be to take a basket of stocks, and sum their prices. If one stock moves up a dollar, and one moves down a dollar, the index has effectively not changed, as it is presumed that the loss in one is offset by the gain in the other.\""
},
{
"docid": "199593",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It starts here - You said you are a high earner, but high is relative. This tax table will show what marginal rate you have for your taxable income. Look at your 2015 return to get a better idea what \"\"taxable\"\" means, vs gross income. For starters, with a standard deduction, and just the two of you, $20K comes off your gross. Even so, let's assume you are in the marginal 25% bracket. The W4 form does offer instructions on how to calculate how much extra to withhold, but, to your point (and brilliant criticism of the process) withholding is not available as a percent, only as normal withholding, i.e. if spouse's income were a flat, predictable number, or as an extra, fixed, number, per check. You shared with us in your other question she expects to earn $7K-$15K. The average of these 2 numbers is $11K, which at 25%, is $2750. I'd divide that over the number of checks remaining this year (20?) and just withhold that much extra. Use your tax software from last year or an online calculator and in 3 months, see if you are on track. You can adjust the W4 any time to get as close to the actual total year tax due as you'd like. My answer focuses on the 'adjust repeatedly,' part of keshlam's own answer. His quarterly payments suggestion also works and you might prefer it. In general, mine would only take 1-2 adjustments per year at most. If you withhold too much, as most people seem to do, you'll get it back when you file. But, worst case, you withhold $3750 and she makes just $8000. This is $1750 too much. The average refund is over $3000. Too little, and mhoran's answer explains when you'd owe a penalty.\""
},
{
"docid": "44617",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\""
},
{
"docid": "20662",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I hope I'm misunderstanding your plan... you want to invest in a way that will make SO MUCH that you pay back all of the loan payments with investment gains? Like the answer I gave on the preceding question, and like @littleadv's comment/mhoran's answers... don't do this. No good will come of it. This strategy requires higher returns, but does not necessarily give you a better return. But because you asked the question again, let me specify what you're missing... I do think that learning is a good thing. It boils down to two very significant problems that you haven't addressed: (1) Where are you getting your monthly \"\"income\"\" from? (2) Realistic vs. Daydreaming--How big do any gains have to be and does that exist in the real world in a way that you can capture? In a nutshell, if my answer to the last question showed that it's crazy to invest and pay back out of your capital and income... since you're trying to keep your capital and only pay back with monthly gains, this one will require even higher and thus more unrealistic gains. The model you're implying: If that's what you mean with this model, (which I think you do), then here are my two very key questions again: How are you getting your monthly income? Financial investments (i.e. stocks or bonds) will have two components of value. One component of value is the stream of payments, such as a monthly dividend from stocks that pay those, or the interest payment from a bond. The other is the ability to resell a security to another investor, receiving back your capital. So... you either have to find Bonds//Dividend stocks that pay >52% returns tax-free each year, and pay this loan off with the payments. (Or higher returns to cover taxes, but these kinds of investments do not exist for you.) OR you can try to invest in something, pray that it goes up ≥4.323% per month and so that you can sell it, pay back your loan payment with the proceeds, and use the capital to buy your next investment... that will go up 4.323% per month, to turn and sell it again. The pros that do model this type of speculation go into much more depth than you are capable of. They build models that incorporate probabilities for rates of return based on historical data. They have better information, and have specialized in calculating this all out. They even have access to better investment opportunities (like pre-IPO Twitter or private notes). You just won't find the opportunities to make this happen, each month, for 24 months. (Again, you won't find them. They do not exist for you in as an investor in securities) Realistic vs. Daydreaming So... clearly I hope that by now I have convinced you that these would be the required returns. They simply aren't available to you. If they were, you would still run into obstacles with converting 'book' returns into physical money that you could repay the loans with, and then continuing that growth. And while I appreciate the notion that 'if I could just make the payments each month, I'd have $10,000 after 24 months!' I guarantee you that you'll be better off finding another way to target that same investment. Along the lines of what mhoran said, if you aim for a basic 401K or other similar investment account and target it into the S&P500, you might see returns of anywhere from -25% to +25% over the next 24 months... but if things went like they tend to average for the S&P500, it's more like ~7% annually. Check out a \"\"savings target calculator\"\" like this one from Bankrate.com and put in the numbers... if you can save about $390 a month you'll be at $10K in 24 months. It's not as fun as the other, but you can actually expect to achieve that. You will not find consistent >50% returns on your money annually.\""
},
{
"docid": "178875",
"title": "",
"text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do."
},
{
"docid": "528475",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "474351",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\""
},
{
"docid": "327978",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From Investopedia: \"\"Beating the market\"\" is a difficult phrase to analyze. It can be used to refer to two different situations: 1) An investor, portfolio manager, fund or other investment specialist produces a better return than the market average. The market average can be calculated in many ways, but usually a benchmark - such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - is a good representation of the market average. If your returns exceed the percentage return of the chosen benchmark, you have beaten the market - congrats! (To learn more, read Benchmark Your Returns With Indexes.) 2) A company's earnings, sales or some other valuation metric is superior to that of other companies in its industry. Matching the market, I would presume will be generating returns equivalent to the index you are comparing your portfolio with. If for a sector/industry then it would be the returns generated by the sector/industry. As an index is more or less a juxtaposition of the market as a whole, people tend to use an index.\""
},
{
"docid": "189006",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\""
},
{
"docid": "45970",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\""
},
{
"docid": "491358",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\""
},
{
"docid": "12232",
"title": "",
"text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly."
},
{
"docid": "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": "299327",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\""
},
{
"docid": "146855",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky)."
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
5255 | Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) Share Price Charts | [
{
"docid": "75112",
"title": "",
"text": "TSP.Ninja http://www.tsp.ninja has all the TSP funds with good visualizations that are very similar to Google Finance."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "68907",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd add, this is actually the way any stock opens every day, i.e. the closing price of the prior day is what it is, but the opening price will reflect whatever news there was prior to the day's open. If you watch the business news, you'll often see that some stock has an order imbalance and has not opened yet, at the normal time. So, as Geo stated, those who were sold shares at the IPO price paid $38, but then the stock could open at whatever price was the point where bid and ask balanced. I snapped a screen capture of this chart on the first day of trading, the daily charts aren't archived where I can find them. This is from Yahoo Finance. You can see the $42 open from those who simply wanted in but couldn't wait, the willingness of sellers to grab their profit right back to what they paid, and then another wave of buying, but then a sell-off. It closed virtually unchanged from the IPO price."
},
{
"docid": "111294",
"title": "",
"text": "This chart showing percentage of smartphone market by operating system is interesting: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/ It shows that Apple has a cyclical trend where the percentage of smartphones sold by Apple peaks in the 4th quarter of every year at around 20% and then gradually goes down to around 15% in the 3rd quarter of each year. Apple basically survives on a fad-like cycle very similar to automobiles where a new model overcomes the price difference with primarily android phones to create a surge of buyers each year around Christmas."
},
{
"docid": "322798",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\""
},
{
"docid": "140769",
"title": "",
"text": "Instead of a price chart can use a performance chart, which is usually expressed as a percentage increase from the original purchase price. To factor in the dividends, you can either add in all of your dividends to the final price, or subtract the accumulated dividends from your cost basis (the initial price)."
},
{
"docid": "55598",
"title": "",
"text": "Like the other answers, I'm not entirely sure the equivalent exists in your country. But in the US there are thrift stores run by charities like GoodWill or the Salvation Army that sell clothes for very little money. When my wife was in a similar situation very early in her career she learned the trick of driving to thrift stores nearest to the richest neighborhoods in town. She often found high dollar designer clothes that had been worn once (to an event or party) and then donated. Apparently it is quite gauche for the well-to-do to be caught dead in the same outfit twice. It wasn't uncommon for her to find clothes/shoes that retailed for hundreds of dollars for $10 or so."
},
{
"docid": "125298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on how the program is run. If the company runs the program out of treasury stock (shares that are authorized, but not issued), then there aren't any shares being purchased on the open market. Because of that, the share price wouldn't be affected. If you look in your employer's annual report, you will probably find how the program is run and how many shares are issued annually under that program. By comparing that to the daily trading volume of the company's stock you can gauge whether there's any likelihood of the share price being affected by the employee purchases. That is, of course, if shares are being purchased on the open market. For example, here is Books-A-Million's program, as described in their 2011 annual report: Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company maintains an employee stock purchase plan under which shares of the Company’s common stock are reserved for purchase by employees at 85% of the fair market value of the common stock at the lower of the market value for the Company’s stock as of the beginning of the fiscal year or the end of the fiscal year. On May 20, 2010, the stockholders of the Company approved an additional 200,000 shares available for issuance under the plan, bringing the aggregate number of shares that may be awarded to 600,000. Of the total reserved shares, 391,987, 373,432 and 289,031 shares have been purchased as of January 29, 2011, January 30, 2010 and January 31, 2009, respectively. This describes an instance of the employee purchase program being run from unissued stock, not open market purchases. From it, we can tell 18,555 shares were issued during the past fiscal year. As their average daily volume is ~40,000 shares, if the program were run from a single open market purchase, it would have potential to \"\"move the market\"\". One would think, though, that a company running it from open market purchases would spread the purchases over a period of time to avoid running up the price on themselves.\""
},
{
"docid": "397383",
"title": "",
"text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings."
},
{
"docid": "330303",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too."
},
{
"docid": "564860",
"title": "",
"text": "Bringing your spouse on board a financial plan is key to success. The biggest part is to have a shared dream. Having retirement saving doesn't mean that you can't work. It does mean that you both will have some level of security as you age. Does your husband really want you to be impoverished when he dies? I doubt it, he probably just hasn't given it much thought. A strong nest-egg can help you after his is gone even if you are still working. My wife and I follow Dave Ramsey's baby steps. It has worked like a champ for us and can help you as well. You can look up his plan, most of the materials are free. A few highlights: So in short, don't worry about retirement until you two are out of debt. Once you two are out of debt then save for your retirement, kids college and pay off your home early. Building a shared dream with your husband is the best way to get him onboard. Talk about helping the kids, freedom to vacation, your parents struggle, whatever gets him to see the importance of having some savings."
},
{
"docid": "30912",
"title": "",
"text": "Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution."
},
{
"docid": "575178",
"title": "",
"text": "For now it could possibly happen, assuming there are that many people wanting to offload their coins and recent charts are showing that trading volume is pretty damn low right now, even with prices being so high. I'm going to guess most people with Bitcoin plan to hold onto it for a while. Considering bitcoin can only be divisible to 8 decimal points (1 bitcoin = 1^8 satoshis), prices will start to skyrocket once supply cedes and (if) demand continues to rise. Or so it should, if it ever reaches that point. Most naysayers believe it'll die before it reaches that point."
},
{
"docid": "137806",
"title": "",
"text": "We started with our son about age 5 or so. He was at the time old enough to understand that you buy stuff using money. We don't give allowance, rather we made up a job chart that he can put checks on, and give him a small amount for each job that he does. This is meant to enforce the idea of 'work and get paid, don't work don't get paid', and associate the concept of work and money. We also try to teach him the concept of giving, spending and saving, by having envelopes with those words on them and dividing the 'commission' money between them. The give money is used for a charitable organization. The save money is used in a couple of ways - either to save for a large item that he wants, or to put into a savings account. The spend it money he is free to buy whatever he wants with. We got this plan from the Dave Ramsey Show, and it has been really good so far. The best thing about it is that when we are at the store and he sees something he wants, we can ask 'did you bring your money?' This keeps the begging down to a minimum and also helps us teach him to make a list of stuff he wants and can save for."
},
{
"docid": "226063",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\""
},
{
"docid": "598238",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "30774",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share."
},
{
"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": "302521",
"title": "",
"text": "This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings."
},
{
"docid": "188839",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\""
}
] |
5255 | Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) Share Price Charts | [
{
"docid": "330453",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're looking to generate your own charts, you can get up-to-date TSP fund share prices in a Google Docs spreadsheet by \"\"scraping\"\" the data from the HTML of certain TSP webpages. You'll need to do this because the GoogleFinance function does not recognize \"\"private\"\" funds or collective trusts like those of the TSP. See this thread for tips: Bogleheads • View topic - GoogleFinance price quotes for TSP Funds\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "77124",
"title": "",
"text": "Par value SHOULD mean that they are offering you the options with a strike price (exercise price) that is equivalent to the current valuation of the company. Note I said SHOULD. As long as you can confirm with HR (or if you're small enough, just ask the CEO) that your grant price is the same as the current valuation of the company's shares, then things are straight. And while it's very unlikely that someone is doing Something Sneaky, it's always possible. As a reference, my recent grant letter said: [Company] (the “Company”) hereby grants you the following Option to purchase shares of its common stock (“Shares”). The terms and conditions of this Option are set forth in the Stock Option Agreement and the [Company] 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), both of which are attached to and made a part of this document."
},
{
"docid": "2653",
"title": "",
"text": "I would not sell unless the stock is starting to fall in price. If you are a long term investor you can review the weekly chart on a weekly basis to determine if the stock is still up-trending. Regarding HD below is a weekly chart for the last 4 years: Basically if the price is making Higher Highs (HH) and Higher Lows (HL) it is up-trending. If it starts to make Lower Lows (LL) followed by Lower Highs (LH) then the uptrend is over and the stock could be entering a downtrend. With HD, the price has been up-trending but seems to now be hitting some headwinds. It has been making some HHs followed by some HLs throughout the last 2 years. It did make a LL in late August 2015 but then recovered nicely to make a new HH, so the uptrend was not broken. In early November 2016 it made another LL but this time it seems to be followed by a LH in mid-December 2016. This could be clear evidence that the uptrend may be ending. The final confirmation would be if the price drops below the early November low of $119.20 (the orange line). If price drops below this price it would be confirmation that the uptrend is over and this should be the point at which you should sell your HD shares. You could place an automatic stop loss order just below $119.20 so that you don't even need to monitor the stock frequently. Another indication that the uptrend may be in trouble is the divergence between the HHs of the price and the peaks of a momentum indicator (in this case the MACD). The two sloping red lines show that the price made HHs in April and August 2016 whilst the momentum indicator made LHs at these peaks in the price. As the lines are sloping in different directions it is demonstrating negative divergence, which means that the momentum of the uptrend is slowing down and can act as an early warning system to be more cautious in the near future. So the question you could be asking is when is a good time to sell out of HD (or at least some of your HD to rebalance)? Why sell something that is still increasing in price? Only sell if you can determine that the price will not be increasing anymore in the near to medium term."
},
{
"docid": "169309",
"title": "",
"text": "The price of a bond goes up when yields go down. For example, you purchase a 5% bond today for $100 and the very next day the same bond is being offered with a rate of 10%. Will you be able to sell you bond for the $100 you paid? No, you must compete with the 10% bonds being sold so you will have to sell your bond for less than the $100 you paid to compete with the new bonds being sold. Thus, bond prices are inversely related to bond yields. The 20-year index you cited tracks bond prices and bond prices have gone up over the last 10 years which means bond yields have gone down. Why have bond prices gone up? Demand. More investors are moving their savings into bonds. Why? I believe there a couple of reasons. One, US Treasuries are thought to be one of the safest investments. With the financial crisis and increased stock market volatility (see chart below) more investors are allocating more of their portfolios to safer investments. Two, a large portion of the US population is approaching retirement (see chart below). These folks are not interested in watching their retirement portfolios potentially shrink in the stock market so they move into bonds."
},
{
"docid": "140572",
"title": "",
"text": "The best strategy? Skip the loan. Find a way to invest for a low starting amount via a retirement account (such as a 401K or IRA in the United States) or non-retirement account. Use this money to buy individual stocks or funds. Every month put money from your regular income into this investment account. Then buy more stocks or sell if the conditions change based on what the market is doing, not to meet a loan payment. This helps you because if the price fluctuates you will buy more shares if the price is down; and you will buy fewer shares when the price is up. It also allows you to skip worrying about how to repay the loan. It also means that you not have to pull more money out of savings to make the final loan payments if it doesn't make as much money as you plan. Regarding your math. This is a better understanding of the money flow than the earlier question."
},
{
"docid": "211414",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\""
},
{
"docid": "447123",
"title": "",
"text": "Use resources like Consumer Reports and recommendations from like-minded friends to figure out brands which have a reputation for making quality clothes. Then trust, but verify. Ideally have a friend who sews a lot go with you on a clothing expedition if you don't know how to determine quality in clothing. People who sew knew their fabrics, and this could be very helpful to you. Start at places that are known for quality clothing, but make sure the reputation hasn't outlived reality. I'd look for: Once you've identified places that you can trust, wait for sales at those stores. I've found that shopping sales at department stores (or better, places like L. L. Bean) is cheaper than a discount retailer and much easier. Even cheaper, go to a thrift store and look for those brands in timeless styles. Your mileage will vary in terms of the what people throw out in your area. Thrift stores work extremely well in high cost of living areas where people give away nearly new items."
},
{
"docid": "188839",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\""
},
{
"docid": "196461",
"title": "",
"text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting."
},
{
"docid": "127702",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think you are reading the stock chart right. ORCL has a beta of 1.12 which means it has more volatility than the market as a whole. See image below for a fairly wild stock chart for a year. I would not truly consider ESPP participation investing, unless you intend to buy and hold the stock. If you intend to sell the stock soon after you are able, it is more speculation. ESPP's are okay based upon the terms. If the stock was a constant price, and you could sell right away, then an ESPP plan would be easy money. Often, employees are often given a 15% discount to purchase the stock. If you can sell it before any price drop, then you are guaranteed to make 15% on the money invested minus any commissions. Some employers make ESPP participants hold the stock for a year. This makes such a plan less of a value. The reasons are the stock can drop in price during that time, you could need the money, or (in the best case) your money is tied up longer making the ROI less. The reasons people invest in stock are varied and is far to much to discuss in a single post. Some of your colleagues are using the ESPP solely to earn the discount in their money."
},
{
"docid": "68907",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd add, this is actually the way any stock opens every day, i.e. the closing price of the prior day is what it is, but the opening price will reflect whatever news there was prior to the day's open. If you watch the business news, you'll often see that some stock has an order imbalance and has not opened yet, at the normal time. So, as Geo stated, those who were sold shares at the IPO price paid $38, but then the stock could open at whatever price was the point where bid and ask balanced. I snapped a screen capture of this chart on the first day of trading, the daily charts aren't archived where I can find them. This is from Yahoo Finance. You can see the $42 open from those who simply wanted in but couldn't wait, the willingness of sellers to grab their profit right back to what they paid, and then another wave of buying, but then a sell-off. It closed virtually unchanged from the IPO price."
},
{
"docid": "307230",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I bought 1000 shares of Apple, when it was $5. And yet, while the purchase was smart, the sales were the dumbest of my life. \"\"You can't go wrong taking a profit\"\" \"\"When a stock doubles sell half and let it ride\"\", etc. It doubled, I sold half, a $5000 gain. Then it split, and kept going up. Long story short, I took gains of just under $50,000 as it rose, and had 100 shares left for the 7 to 1 split. The 700 shares are worth $79,000. But, if I simply let it ride, 1000 shares split to 14,000. $1.4M. I suppose turning $5,000 into $130K is cause for celebration, but it will stay with me as the lost $1.3M opportunity. Look at the chart and tell me the value of selling stocks at their 52 week high. Yet, if you chart stocks heading into the dotcom bubble, you'll see a history of $100 stocks crashing to single digits. But none of them sported a P/E of 12.\""
},
{
"docid": "112946",
"title": "",
"text": "The actual price is represented on charts and not the change in price as a percentage, because it is the actual price which is used in all other parts of analysis (both technical and fundamental), and it is the actual figure the security is bought and sold at. A change in price has to be relative to a previous price at a previous time, and we can easily work out the change in price over any given time period. I think what you are concerned about is how to compare a certain actual price change in low priced securities to the same actual price change in a higher priced securities. For example: $1.00 rise in a $2.00 stock representing a 50% increase in price; $1.00 rise in a $10.00 stock representing a 10% increase in price. On a standard chart both of these look the same, as they both show a $1.00 increase in price. So what can we do to show the true representation of the percentage increase in price? It is actually quite simple. You view the chart using a log scale instead of a standard scale (most charting packages should have this option). What may look like a bubble on a standard scale chart, looks like a healthy uptrend on a log scale chart and represents a true picture of the percentage change in price. Example of Standard Price Scale VS LOG Price Scale on a Chart Standard Price Scale On the standard scale the price seems to have very little movement from Mar09 to Jan12 and then the price seems to zoom up after Jan12 to Mar13. This is because a 4% increase (for example) of $0.50 is only $0.02, whilst a 4% increase of $7.00 $0.28, so the increases seem much bigger at the end of the chart. LOG Price Scale On the LOG chart however, these price changes seem to be more evenly displayed no matter at what price level the price change has occurred at. This thus give a better representation of how fast or slow the price is rising or falling, or the size of the change in price."
},
{
"docid": "410117",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price. Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the \"\"average\"\" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period.\""
},
{
"docid": "143334",
"title": "",
"text": "You should not trade based on what news is just released, if you try you will be too slow to react most of the time. In many cases the news is already priced into the stock during the anticipation of the news being released. Other times as soon as the news is released the price will gap up or down in response to the news. Some times when you think that the news is good, like new record profits have been achieved, but the share price goes down instead of up. This may be due to the expectation of the record profits by analysts to be 20% more than last year, but the company only achieves 10% more than last year. So the news is actually seen as bad because, even though record profits, it hasn't met expectations. The same can happen in the other direction, a company may make a loss and the share price goes up. This may be because it was expected to make a 50% loss but only made a 20% loss due to cost cutting, so this is seen as a good thing and the price can shoot up, especially if it had been beaten down for months. An other example is when the Federal Reserve in the USA put up interest rates earlier this month. Some may have seen this as bad news and expected share prices to fall, but instead prices rallied. This was actually seen as good news, firstly because it had been expected for a long time, and secondly and more importantly because a small rise in interest rates after many years of near zero rates is a sign of the economy finally starting to improve. If the economy is improving, that means more people will have jobs, more people will be spending more money, companies will start to make higher revenues and start to expand, which means higher profits and higher share prices. A better way to trade is to have a written trading plan and use technical analysis to develop a set of buy and sell criteria that you follow to the tea. Then back test your trading plan through various market conditions to make sure you get a positive expectancy."
},
{
"docid": "111294",
"title": "",
"text": "This chart showing percentage of smartphone market by operating system is interesting: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/ It shows that Apple has a cyclical trend where the percentage of smartphones sold by Apple peaks in the 4th quarter of every year at around 20% and then gradually goes down to around 15% in the 3rd quarter of each year. Apple basically survives on a fad-like cycle very similar to automobiles where a new model overcomes the price difference with primarily android phones to create a surge of buyers each year around Christmas."
},
{
"docid": "30774",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share."
},
{
"docid": "361345",
"title": "",
"text": "Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return."
},
{
"docid": "52441",
"title": "",
"text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement."
},
{
"docid": "242850",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?\"\" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself: What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally.\""
}
] |
5255 | Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) Share Price Charts | [
{
"docid": "412830",
"title": "",
"text": "The recommended way to track TSP funds in online portfolio tools is to track the underlying index and know that the results are pretty close. Not a perfect solution: :( Source including suggested ETFs: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/breaking-down-tsp-investment-funds-194600393.html Related, but not exactly what you are looking for, Personal Capital will track your TSP holdings: http://themilitarywallet.com/manage-thrift-savings-plan/"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "528576",
"title": "",
"text": "I am in complete agreement with you. The place i have found with the sort of charts you are looking for is stockcharts.com. To compare the percentage increase of several stocks over a period of 2 market-open days or more, which is quite useful to follow the changes in various stocks… etc., an example: Here the tickers are AA to EEEEE (OTC) and $GOLD / $SILVER for the spot gold / silver price (that isn't really a ticker). It is set to show the last 6 market days (one week+)...the '6' in '6&O'. You can change it in the URL above or change it on the site for the stocks you want... up to 25 in one chart but it gets really hard to tell them apart! By moving the slider just left of the ‘6’ at the bottom right corner of the chart, you can look at 2 days or more. For a specific time period in days, highlight the ‘6’ and type any number of market-open days you want (21 days = about one month, etc.). By setting a time period in days, and moving the entire slider, you can see how your stocks did in the last bull/bear run, as an example. The site has a full how-to, for this and the other types of charts they offer. The only problem is that many OTC stocks are not charted. Save the comparison charts you use regularly in a folder in your browser bookmarks. Blessings. I see the entire needed link isn't in blue... but you need it all."
},
{
"docid": "572622",
"title": "",
"text": "If your stock is rising and you want to buy on a dip, the best way to do this is by looking at the chart and incorporating simple Technical Analysis techniques. Firstly, an uptrend is defined as a price chart with higher highs and higher lowers. If you get a lower high or a lower low (or both), it could be the end of the uptrend - be cautious. This can be seen on the chart below with an uptrend line drawn. If you draw a trend line you can wait for the price to approach the trend line, bounce off it and start moving up again to buy your stock on a dip. If instead the price closes below the trend line, be very cautious - this could be the end of the uptrend and the start of a downtrend - no telling how low the price will go. If this is the case you can then draw a downtrend line and wait for the price to close above the downtrend line before making your purchase."
},
{
"docid": "265877",
"title": "",
"text": "I speak as a person without kids, but I'll give this a shot anyway, using my memory of the perspective I had when I was a kid. My advice is, if the kids are young enough to not care much, don't be afraid of the thrift store. My parents got a bunch of clothes from the thrift store as I was growing up (around elementary school age) and I didn't care at all. When I got to be older, (middle school age) shopping at Target and K-mart didn't seem bad either. By the time the kids are old enough to really care beyond, they are probably old enough to get their own part-time jobs and get their own clothing. I however, am probably naive, as I still care little for such things, and judging from popular culture, most care about them a great deal."
},
{
"docid": "140572",
"title": "",
"text": "The best strategy? Skip the loan. Find a way to invest for a low starting amount via a retirement account (such as a 401K or IRA in the United States) or non-retirement account. Use this money to buy individual stocks or funds. Every month put money from your regular income into this investment account. Then buy more stocks or sell if the conditions change based on what the market is doing, not to meet a loan payment. This helps you because if the price fluctuates you will buy more shares if the price is down; and you will buy fewer shares when the price is up. It also allows you to skip worrying about how to repay the loan. It also means that you not have to pull more money out of savings to make the final loan payments if it doesn't make as much money as you plan. Regarding your math. This is a better understanding of the money flow than the earlier question."
},
{
"docid": "302521",
"title": "",
"text": "This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings."
},
{
"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": "403608",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \"\"worth more\"\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\""
},
{
"docid": "55598",
"title": "",
"text": "Like the other answers, I'm not entirely sure the equivalent exists in your country. But in the US there are thrift stores run by charities like GoodWill or the Salvation Army that sell clothes for very little money. When my wife was in a similar situation very early in her career she learned the trick of driving to thrift stores nearest to the richest neighborhoods in town. She often found high dollar designer clothes that had been worn once (to an event or party) and then donated. Apparently it is quite gauche for the well-to-do to be caught dead in the same outfit twice. It wasn't uncommon for her to find clothes/shoes that retailed for hundreds of dollars for $10 or so."
},
{
"docid": "456436",
"title": "",
"text": "The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End."
},
{
"docid": "169309",
"title": "",
"text": "The price of a bond goes up when yields go down. For example, you purchase a 5% bond today for $100 and the very next day the same bond is being offered with a rate of 10%. Will you be able to sell you bond for the $100 you paid? No, you must compete with the 10% bonds being sold so you will have to sell your bond for less than the $100 you paid to compete with the new bonds being sold. Thus, bond prices are inversely related to bond yields. The 20-year index you cited tracks bond prices and bond prices have gone up over the last 10 years which means bond yields have gone down. Why have bond prices gone up? Demand. More investors are moving their savings into bonds. Why? I believe there a couple of reasons. One, US Treasuries are thought to be one of the safest investments. With the financial crisis and increased stock market volatility (see chart below) more investors are allocating more of their portfolios to safer investments. Two, a large portion of the US population is approaching retirement (see chart below). These folks are not interested in watching their retirement portfolios potentially shrink in the stock market so they move into bonds."
},
{
"docid": "481339",
"title": "",
"text": "There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation."
},
{
"docid": "330792",
"title": "",
"text": "Reading the plan documentation, yes, that is what it means. Each purchase by bank debit, whether one-time or automatic, costs $2 plus $0.06 per share; so if you invested $50, you would get slightly less than $48 in stock as a result (depending on the per-share price). Schedule of Fees Purchases – A one-time $15.00 enrollment fee to establish a new account for a non-shareholder will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Dividend reinvestment: The Hershey Company pays the transaction fee and per share* fee on your behalf. – Each optional cash purchase by one-time online bank debit will entail a transaction fee of $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – Each optional cash purchase by check will entail a transaction fee of $5.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – If funds are automatically deducted from your checking or savings account, the transaction fee is $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. Funds will be withdrawn on the 10th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 10th is not a business day. – Fees will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Returned check and rejected ACH debit fee is $35.00."
},
{
"docid": "52441",
"title": "",
"text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement."
},
{
"docid": "307230",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I bought 1000 shares of Apple, when it was $5. And yet, while the purchase was smart, the sales were the dumbest of my life. \"\"You can't go wrong taking a profit\"\" \"\"When a stock doubles sell half and let it ride\"\", etc. It doubled, I sold half, a $5000 gain. Then it split, and kept going up. Long story short, I took gains of just under $50,000 as it rose, and had 100 shares left for the 7 to 1 split. The 700 shares are worth $79,000. But, if I simply let it ride, 1000 shares split to 14,000. $1.4M. I suppose turning $5,000 into $130K is cause for celebration, but it will stay with me as the lost $1.3M opportunity. Look at the chart and tell me the value of selling stocks at their 52 week high. Yet, if you chart stocks heading into the dotcom bubble, you'll see a history of $100 stocks crashing to single digits. But none of them sported a P/E of 12.\""
},
{
"docid": "137806",
"title": "",
"text": "We started with our son about age 5 or so. He was at the time old enough to understand that you buy stuff using money. We don't give allowance, rather we made up a job chart that he can put checks on, and give him a small amount for each job that he does. This is meant to enforce the idea of 'work and get paid, don't work don't get paid', and associate the concept of work and money. We also try to teach him the concept of giving, spending and saving, by having envelopes with those words on them and dividing the 'commission' money between them. The give money is used for a charitable organization. The save money is used in a couple of ways - either to save for a large item that he wants, or to put into a savings account. The spend it money he is free to buy whatever he wants with. We got this plan from the Dave Ramsey Show, and it has been really good so far. The best thing about it is that when we are at the store and he sees something he wants, we can ask 'did you bring your money?' This keeps the begging down to a minimum and also helps us teach him to make a list of stuff he wants and can save for."
},
{
"docid": "112946",
"title": "",
"text": "The actual price is represented on charts and not the change in price as a percentage, because it is the actual price which is used in all other parts of analysis (both technical and fundamental), and it is the actual figure the security is bought and sold at. A change in price has to be relative to a previous price at a previous time, and we can easily work out the change in price over any given time period. I think what you are concerned about is how to compare a certain actual price change in low priced securities to the same actual price change in a higher priced securities. For example: $1.00 rise in a $2.00 stock representing a 50% increase in price; $1.00 rise in a $10.00 stock representing a 10% increase in price. On a standard chart both of these look the same, as they both show a $1.00 increase in price. So what can we do to show the true representation of the percentage increase in price? It is actually quite simple. You view the chart using a log scale instead of a standard scale (most charting packages should have this option). What may look like a bubble on a standard scale chart, looks like a healthy uptrend on a log scale chart and represents a true picture of the percentage change in price. Example of Standard Price Scale VS LOG Price Scale on a Chart Standard Price Scale On the standard scale the price seems to have very little movement from Mar09 to Jan12 and then the price seems to zoom up after Jan12 to Mar13. This is because a 4% increase (for example) of $0.50 is only $0.02, whilst a 4% increase of $7.00 $0.28, so the increases seem much bigger at the end of the chart. LOG Price Scale On the LOG chart however, these price changes seem to be more evenly displayed no matter at what price level the price change has occurred at. This thus give a better representation of how fast or slow the price is rising or falling, or the size of the change in price."
},
{
"docid": "598993",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's do a real example of leverage on the SPY. Imagine you have $20K today and plan on having $100K by JAN 2018. You could get 100 shares of SPY and ride it out. Maybe buying another 100 shares every few months until 2018, ending up with less than 500 shares to your name ( and zero cash in the bank ). or You could lever with DEC 2017 LEAP CALLS. They'll expire in 2.5 years, so you'd have to re-up sooner than your plan. With 20K starting cash, in my example we'll go with 5 contracts to start with. If we choose the $230 strike they'd cost $1250 each (putting roughly $6250 at risk). The plan in is if the stock market goes up, you've got leverage. You are the proud owner of contracts worth 500 shares of SPY and have only spent 1/3rd of your present day dollars. If the market goes down in the next two years, sure, you lost the entire $6250, but likely saved $93,750 powder dry and can try your luck with the 2021 LEAPS. Probably get down votes for this, but I'll even argue that proper use of leverage can very much reduce your risk. One truth is you'll never get a margin call from holding long options."
},
{
"docid": "491647",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you are looking for is an indicator called the \"\"Rate of Change (Price)\"\". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen. Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart.\""
},
{
"docid": "196461",
"title": "",
"text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting."
}
] |
5264 | Does a company's stock price give any indication to or affect their revenue? | [
{
"docid": "371720",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "170247",
"title": "",
"text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term."
},
{
"docid": "165544",
"title": "",
"text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares."
},
{
"docid": "195089",
"title": "",
"text": "Willis Group Holdings Set to Join the S&P 500; Fossil Group to Join S&P MidCap 400; Adeptus Health to Join S&P SmallCap 600 notes in part for the S & P case: Willis Group Holdings plc (NYSE:WSH) will replace Fossil Group Inc. (NASD:FOSL) in the S&P 500, and Fossil Group will replace Towers Watson & Co. (NASD:TW) in the S&P MidCap 400 after the close of trading on Monday, January 4. Willis Group is merging with Towers Watson in a deal expected to be completed on or about that date pending final conditions. Post merger, Willis Group Holdings will change its name to Willis Towers Watson plc and trade under the ticker symbol “WLTW”. Fossil has a market capitalization that is more representative of the midcap market space. As of Jan. 8, Fossil is about $1.44B in market cap and Willis is $21.02B for those wondering. Apple with a market cap of $540.58B is 3.26% of the index making the entire index worth approximately $16,582.21B, so Fossil is worth .00868% of the overall index for those wanting some numbers here. Thus, if a company acquires another and becomes bigger than there can be replacements made in those indices that have an artificial number of small members. Alternatively, a member may be removed for lack of representation where it is just so small compared to other companies that may be a better fit as some indices could be viewed as actively managed in a sense. In contrast, there are indices like those from Russell, known for the Russell 2000 small-cap index: Q: Why don't you reconstitute the indexes more often than once a year? A: Maintaining representative indexes must be weighed against the costs associated with making frequent changes to index constituents (namely, buying and selling stocks). The Russell Indexes are annually reconstituted because our research has shown that this strikes a reasonable balance between accuracy and cost. We originally reconstituted our indexes quarterly, then semi-annually, but found these options to be suboptimal. Our extensive research demonstrates that annual reconstitution accurately represents the capitalization segments and minimizes the turnover required to reflect the segments as they change. Thus there can be different scenarios. Then there can be the effect on index funds when price-weighted indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average has a member that does a stock split that causes some rebalancing too. On the DJIA Divisor: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted index that is calculated by dividing the sum of the prices of the 30 component stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average components) by a number called the DJIA Divisor or Dow Divisor . The index divisor is updated periodically and adjusted to offset the effect of stock splits, bonus issues or any change in the component stocks included in the DJIA. This is done in order to keep the index value consistent."
},
{
"docid": "79777",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\""
},
{
"docid": "495165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\""
},
{
"docid": "329527",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works. The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that? There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible. As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market? It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices."
},
{
"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": "143655",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\""
},
{
"docid": "484190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\""
},
{
"docid": "354638",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\""
},
{
"docid": "117082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\""
},
{
"docid": "262925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\""
},
{
"docid": "583678",
"title": "",
"text": "The relation between inflation and stock (or economic) performance is not well-understood. Decades ago, economists thought inflation corresponded with periods of high growth and good real returns, but since then we have had periods of low inflation and high growth and high inflation with low growth. It is generally understood among current economists that inflation levels (especially expected inflation) are neither indicative nor causative of real stock returns. Many things can affect inflation, and economic performance is only a minor one. Many things can cause economic performance, and inflation is only a minor one. It's not clear whether the overall relation between inflation and real stock returns is positive or negative. Notice, however, that in principle stock returns are real. That is, the money companies make is in inflated dollars so profit and dividends for a company whose prospects have not changed should go up and down at the same rate as inflation. This would mean if inflation goes up by 5% and nothing else changes, you would expect stock prices to go up by the same proportion so you wouldn't have strong feelings about inflation one way or the other. In real life stock prices will go up by either more or less than 5% but I'm not comfortable saying which, on average. Bottom line: current levels of inflation can't really be used to predict real stock returns, so you shouldn't let current inflation guide your decision about whether to buy stock."
},
{
"docid": "449941",
"title": "",
"text": "\"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\""
},
{
"docid": "427674",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am guessing that when you say \"\"FRENCH40\"\" and \"\"GERMAN30\"\" you are referring to the main French and German stock market indices. The main French index is the CAC-40 with its 40 constituent companies. The main German index is the DAX, which has 30 constituents. The US30 is presumably the Dow Jones Index which also has 30 constituents. These are stock market indices that are used to measure the value of a basket of shares (the index constituents). As the value of the constituents change, so does the value of the index. There are various financial instruments that allow investors to profit from movements in these indices. It is those people who invest in these instruments that profit from price movements. The constituent companies receive no direct benefit or profit from investor trading in these instruments, nor does the government.\""
},
{
"docid": "390817",
"title": "",
"text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back."
},
{
"docid": "132219",
"title": "",
"text": "Calculating and adjusting cost basis accurately is a daunting task, but there is a (paid) online tool, NetBasis, which will automatically calculate and adjust your cost basis. It is used by brokerage firms and Fortune 500 companies and is available to the public. Go to netbasis.com. All you need are the purchase and sale dates and shares of the stock or mutual fund and the system has the rest of the information, such as corporate actions (splits, spin-offs, etc), pricing, and dividends and it also will apply the appropriate IRS rules for inherited and gifted shares. The regulation also gives investors the option to choose calculation methods. Not only does NetBasis automatically calculate the method you choose, it will also give the results for all options and allow you to choose the best result. NetBasis also provides you with detailed supporting documentation which shows all of the calculations and the adjustments in chronological order. NetBasis has data going back as far as 1925, so it will accurately calculate cost basis for your old American Telegraph and Telephone shares. NetBasis also handles complex investment scenarios such as wash sales, short sales, return of capital, etc. Moderator's note: Disclosure: The answerer's profile indicates they are affiliated with NetBasis."
},
{
"docid": "8643",
"title": "",
"text": "Large-scale price range of a stock isn't directly meaningful; that reflects how many shares exist, not just how desirable they are. A stock split, for example, doubles the number of shares everyone holds while cutting the value of each share in half; that's meaningless except that it makes the shares a bit easier to trade in. Change in price is more interesting. In the case of energy companies, that often reflects major changes in energy supply, distribution, use, or how well positioned people feel the company is for the next change in these. Fracking's surge and the questions raised against it, whether a major pipeline will or won't be built, international energy price trends, breakthroughs in renewables... if it might affect energy price, it might affect the company's strength, both absolute and relative to others. In other words, the same kinds of things that affect any stock."
},
{
"docid": "301570",
"title": "",
"text": "No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low."
}
] |
5264 | Does a company's stock price give any indication to or affect their revenue? | [
{
"docid": "52579",
"title": "",
"text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "173052",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "54257",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\""
},
{
"docid": "87349",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits \"\"jumped,\"\" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend.\""
},
{
"docid": "194641",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\""
},
{
"docid": "277190",
"title": "",
"text": "Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology."
},
{
"docid": "125298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on how the program is run. If the company runs the program out of treasury stock (shares that are authorized, but not issued), then there aren't any shares being purchased on the open market. Because of that, the share price wouldn't be affected. If you look in your employer's annual report, you will probably find how the program is run and how many shares are issued annually under that program. By comparing that to the daily trading volume of the company's stock you can gauge whether there's any likelihood of the share price being affected by the employee purchases. That is, of course, if shares are being purchased on the open market. For example, here is Books-A-Million's program, as described in their 2011 annual report: Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company maintains an employee stock purchase plan under which shares of the Company’s common stock are reserved for purchase by employees at 85% of the fair market value of the common stock at the lower of the market value for the Company’s stock as of the beginning of the fiscal year or the end of the fiscal year. On May 20, 2010, the stockholders of the Company approved an additional 200,000 shares available for issuance under the plan, bringing the aggregate number of shares that may be awarded to 600,000. Of the total reserved shares, 391,987, 373,432 and 289,031 shares have been purchased as of January 29, 2011, January 30, 2010 and January 31, 2009, respectively. This describes an instance of the employee purchase program being run from unissued stock, not open market purchases. From it, we can tell 18,555 shares were issued during the past fiscal year. As their average daily volume is ~40,000 shares, if the program were run from a single open market purchase, it would have potential to \"\"move the market\"\". One would think, though, that a company running it from open market purchases would spread the purchases over a period of time to avoid running up the price on themselves.\""
},
{
"docid": "192529",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market. Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%. This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business. This bump will only be sustainable if they can. If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide. There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor. If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures. But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price. If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price. So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30 A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00. Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company. If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price."
},
{
"docid": "308947",
"title": "",
"text": "You're right, things can get a little out of hand on Reddit. The prior post is gone now so I can't really remember, but the gist of what I meant earlier was that your logic didn't line up in that the price of a stock is indicative of it's value, but doesn't equate to it's value. The price is a combination of the perceived intrinsic valuation of the company as well as sentiment. The price can go up if people are buying but it doesn't necessarily mean the company's value or financial conditions are improving (though it can). It's a common trap to fall into, and can lead one to ignore for example revenues falling or other metrics deteriorating merely because the stock price continues up so it must be getting better and better. Sorry, not a very coherent response, if you're unsure feel free to pm me"
},
{
"docid": "484190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\""
},
{
"docid": "418150",
"title": "",
"text": "If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S. blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs."
},
{
"docid": "89973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need. People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend. You are correct though Pfizer might be considered \"\"more growth.\"\" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon. Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products. Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend. Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible. The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company. Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income. You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well.\""
},
{
"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": "449941",
"title": "",
"text": "\"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\""
},
{
"docid": "565501",
"title": "",
"text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do."
},
{
"docid": "513485",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\""
},
{
"docid": "451737",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\""
},
{
"docid": "91363",
"title": "",
"text": "As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will."
},
{
"docid": "53263",
"title": "",
"text": "The information on GOOG or other sites is the average price of the stock and is indicative of the price at with the stock would be available. The actual trades happen at different values throught the day ... So the prices are good for most purposes and if you need the exact prices, you can thne decided to log into you trading terminal and get the actual quotes This is similar to FX quotes or any other such quotes and give you a general sense"
},
{
"docid": "143655",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\""
}
] |
5264 | Does a company's stock price give any indication to or affect their revenue? | [
{
"docid": "505694",
"title": "",
"text": "Look at the how the income statement is built. The stock price is nowhere on it. The net income is based on the revenue (money coming in) and expenses (money going out). Most companies do not issue stock all that often. The price you see quoted is third parties selling the stock to each other."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "170247",
"title": "",
"text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term."
},
{
"docid": "87349",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits \"\"jumped,\"\" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend.\""
},
{
"docid": "148270",
"title": "",
"text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself."
},
{
"docid": "301380",
"title": "",
"text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman."
},
{
"docid": "329527",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works. The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that? There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible. As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market? It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices."
},
{
"docid": "239502",
"title": "",
"text": "In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price."
},
{
"docid": "143655",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\""
},
{
"docid": "390817",
"title": "",
"text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back."
},
{
"docid": "584901",
"title": "",
"text": "News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand. That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor. An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock. That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception. Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets. Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point. There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock. It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such. There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand. An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price. Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day. In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system. Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly. That alone could make for a highly variable environment."
},
{
"docid": "144208",
"title": "",
"text": "The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset. The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently. The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital. What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness. The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice. Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness. When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand. Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock. People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness. In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play. A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness. Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy. An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more. But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash. The happiness report is an annual report of happiness. Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness. For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet. If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton."
},
{
"docid": "548673",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\""
},
{
"docid": "206350",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The formula for standard deviation is fairly simple in both the discrete and continuous cases. It's mostly safe to use the discrete case when working with adjusted closing prices. Once you've calculated the standard deviation for a given time period, the next task (in the simplest case) is to calculate the mean of that same period. This allows you to roughly approximate the distribution, which can give you all sorts of testable hypotheses. Two standard deviations (σ) away from the mean (μ) is given by: It doesn't make any sense to talk about \"\"two standard deviations away from the price\"\" unless that price is the mean or some other statistic for a given time period. Normally you would look at how far the price is from the mean, e.g. does the price fall two or three standard deviations away from the mean or some other technical indicator like the Average True Range (an exponential moving average of the True Range), some support level, another security, etc. For most of this answer, I'll assume we're using the mean for the chosen time period as a base. However, the answer is still more complicated than many people realize. As I said before, to calculate the standard deviation, you need to decide on a time period. For example, you could use S&P 500 data from Yahoo Finance and calculate the standard deviation for all adjusted closing prices since January 3, 1950. Downloading the data into Stata and applying the summarize command gives me: As you can probably see, however, these numbers don't make much sense. Looking at the data, we can see that the S&P 500 hasn't traded close to 424.4896 since November 1992. Clearly, we can't assume that this mean and standard deviation as representative of current market conditions. Furthermore, these numbers would imply that the S&P 500 is currently trading at almost three standard deviations away from its mean, which for many distribution is a highly improbable event. The Great Recession, quantitative easing, etc. may have changed the market significantly, but not to such a great extent. The problem arises from the fact that security prices are usually non-stationary.. This means that the underlying distribution from which security prices are \"\"drawn\"\" shifts through time and space. For example, prices could be normally distributed in the 50's, then gamma distributed in the 60's because of a shock, then normally distributed again in the 70's. This implies that calculating summary statistics, e.g. mean, standard deviation, etc. are essentially meaningless for time periods in which prices could follow multiple distributions. For this and other reasons, it's standard practice to look at the standard deviation of returns or differences instead of prices. I covered in detail the reasons for this and various procedures to use in another answer. In short, you can calculate the first difference for each period, which is merely the difference between the closing price of that period and the closing price of the previous period. This will usually give you a stationary process, from which you can obtain more meaningful values of the standard deviation, mean, etc. Let's use the S&P500 as an example again. This time, however, I'm only using data from 1990 onwards, for the sake of simplicity (and to make the graphs a bit more manageable). The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer). Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this: This looks a lot more reasonable. In periods of recession, the price appears much more volatile, and it breaches the +/- one standard deviation lines indicated on the graph. This is only a simple summary, but using first differencing as part of the wider process of detrending/decomposing a time series is a good first step. For some technical indicators, however, stationary isn't as relevant. This is the case for some types of moving averages and their associated indicators. Take Bollinger bands for instance. These are technical indicators that show a number of standard deviations above and below a moving average. Like any calculation of standard deviation, moving average, statistic, etc. they require data over a specified time period. The analyst chooses a certain number of historical periods, e.g. 20, and calculates the moving average for that many previous periods and the moving/rolling standard deviation for those same periods as well. The Bollinger bands represent the values a certain number of standard deviations away from the moving average at a given point in time. At this given point, you can calculate the value two standard deviations \"\"away from the value,\"\" but doing so still requires the historical stock price (or at least the historical moving average). If you're only given the price in isolation, you're out of luck. Moving averages can indirectly sidestep some of the issues of stationarity I described above because it's straightforward to estimate a time series with a process built from a moving average (specifically, an auto-regressive moving average process) but the econometrics of time series is a topic for another day. The Stata code I used to generate the graphs and summary statistics:\""
},
{
"docid": "394226",
"title": "",
"text": "Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price. Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1. Companies often aren't looking to halve their stock price by offering a two-for-one split; they may think a smaller figure like 50% or even smaller is preferable, to fine tune their stock price (and thus P/E ratio and EPS figures) similar to industry competitors or to companies with similar market capitalization. In such situations they can offer a split that's X-for-Y with X>Y, like a 3-for-2, 5-for-3 or similar. These are relatively uncommon, but they do happen; Home Depot's first stock split, in 1987, was a 3-for-2. Other ratios are rare, and MSFT has only ever been split 2-for-1. So, it's most likely that you ended up with the extra sixth of a share through dividend reinvestment or a broker policy allowing fractional-share investment."
},
{
"docid": "226063",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\""
},
{
"docid": "9274",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\""
},
{
"docid": "262925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\""
},
{
"docid": "301570",
"title": "",
"text": "No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low."
},
{
"docid": "484190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\""
},
{
"docid": "188232",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\""
}
] |
5264 | Does a company's stock price give any indication to or affect their revenue? | [
{
"docid": "431814",
"title": "",
"text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "416822",
"title": "",
"text": "And the 2015 investment article will surly show us the light*!* /s >...Important disclosures: The information provided herein is believed to be reliable; however, EnerCom, Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to its completeness or accuracy. EnerCom’s conclusions are based upon information gathered from sources deemed to be reliable. This note is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or financial instrument of any company mentioned in this note. This note was prepared for general circulation and does not provide investment recommendations specific to individual investors. All readers of the note must make their own investment decisions based upon their specific investment objectives and financial situation utilizing their own financial advisors as they deem necessary. Investors should consider a company’s entire financial and operational structure in making any investment decisions. Past performance of any company discussed in this note should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of future results. EnerCom is a multi-disciplined management consulting services firm that regularly intends to seek business, or currently may be undertaking business, with companies covered on Oil & Gas 360®, and thereby seeks to receive compensation from these companies for its services. In addition, EnerCom, or its principals or employees, may have an economic interest in any of these companies. As a result, readers of EnerCom’s Oil & Gas 360® should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this note. The company or companies covered in this note did not review the note prior to publication. EnerCom, or its principals or employees, may have an economic interest in any of the companies covered in this report or on Oil & Gas 360®. As a result, readers of EnerCom’s reports or Oil & Gas 360® should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report."
},
{
"docid": "390725",
"title": "",
"text": "Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead."
},
{
"docid": "192529",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market. Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%. This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business. This bump will only be sustainable if they can. If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide. There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor. If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures. But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price. If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price. So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30 A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00. Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company. If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price."
},
{
"docid": "565501",
"title": "",
"text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do."
},
{
"docid": "484016",
"title": "",
"text": "Well I just had my interview about 2 weeks ago and some of these questions DID come up. So these are a start, but also you should just pay attention carefully to your finance course literature. Things like price/yield relations of bonds. How does maturity affect their price sensitivity? What does dividend issuance do to the value of an equity's stock? As to your next summer internship... I find it a little weird that you'd be involved in VC. No offense, but those people usually have many years of background in an industry before they start giving seed money to prospective companies. Maybe some specifics on what you'd actually be doing for a VC firm could help me help you."
},
{
"docid": "495165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\""
},
{
"docid": "239998",
"title": "",
"text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch."
},
{
"docid": "194641",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\""
},
{
"docid": "87349",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits \"\"jumped,\"\" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend.\""
},
{
"docid": "489933",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would have to disagree with the other responders. In technical analysis of stock charts, various short and long term moving averages are used to give an indication of the trend of the stock in the short and long term, as compared to the current price. I would prefer to use the term moving average (MA) rather than average as the MA is recalculated every day (or at appropriate frequencies for your data) on the period you are using. I would also expand on the term \"\"moving average\"\". There are two that are commonly used Going back to the question, of the value of this number, For example if the current price is above the 200 day EWMA and also above the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending upwards. Conversely if current price is below the 200 day EWMA and also below the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending downwards. These numbers are chosen on the basis of the market you are trading in, the volatility and other factors. For another example of how a number of moving averages are used together, please have a read of Daryl Guppy's Multiple Moving Average, though this does not use moving averages as large as 200 days.\""
},
{
"docid": "146091",
"title": "",
"text": "\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\""
},
{
"docid": "390817",
"title": "",
"text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back."
},
{
"docid": "262925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\""
},
{
"docid": "69766",
"title": "",
"text": "I have maintained that traditional TV will be obsolete for years now... it seems a certain inevitability, since the invention of the internet. Even assuming it is certain, there are some things to consider: 1) Time Frame: It is taking way longer than I had expected for people to switch away from traditional subscriptions/packaging. Many people refuse to adopt/adapt to new technology and like the comfortable familiarity of TV. It is hard to say exactly when 'the big shift' will happen. 2) The companies making billions of dollars are likely monitoring their revenues/market very closely, and will probably know better than you when their current business model is about to fail. They may develop a plan to switch to internet based distribution, production of shows, or any number of other alternatives, which might not cause their share price to drop as drastically as one might predict. Profiting from this idea (as with any strategy) relies on you to identify the stocks that will be affected, and time your short position on them better than the rest of the market. Doing it now, or at an arbitrary date, means you will incur the opportunity cost of holding the instrument over a period when another investment would yield better returns (potentially even a long position on these same companies)."
},
{
"docid": "173052",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "226063",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\""
},
{
"docid": "583678",
"title": "",
"text": "The relation between inflation and stock (or economic) performance is not well-understood. Decades ago, economists thought inflation corresponded with periods of high growth and good real returns, but since then we have had periods of low inflation and high growth and high inflation with low growth. It is generally understood among current economists that inflation levels (especially expected inflation) are neither indicative nor causative of real stock returns. Many things can affect inflation, and economic performance is only a minor one. Many things can cause economic performance, and inflation is only a minor one. It's not clear whether the overall relation between inflation and real stock returns is positive or negative. Notice, however, that in principle stock returns are real. That is, the money companies make is in inflated dollars so profit and dividends for a company whose prospects have not changed should go up and down at the same rate as inflation. This would mean if inflation goes up by 5% and nothing else changes, you would expect stock prices to go up by the same proportion so you wouldn't have strong feelings about inflation one way or the other. In real life stock prices will go up by either more or less than 5% but I'm not comfortable saying which, on average. Bottom line: current levels of inflation can't really be used to predict real stock returns, so you shouldn't let current inflation guide your decision about whether to buy stock."
},
{
"docid": "449500",
"title": "",
"text": "Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss."
},
{
"docid": "117082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\""
}
] |
5264 | Does a company's stock price give any indication to or affect their revenue? | [
{
"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": "173052",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "87349",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits \"\"jumped,\"\" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend.\""
},
{
"docid": "565501",
"title": "",
"text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do."
},
{
"docid": "192529",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market. Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%. This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business. This bump will only be sustainable if they can. If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide. There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor. If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures. But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price. If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price. So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30 A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00. Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company. If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price."
},
{
"docid": "53839",
"title": "",
"text": "Well first of all, they clawed back 75 mln of those bonuses paid out, so they really didn't get paid that money. Second, not every executive, not even probably more than one executive, was even aware this was happening. There is one who **might** have known it was happening, but the reality is that a lot of these decisions and plans are implemented several levels down from the executive team. The executives do not get involved in day to day shit typically. Third, those bonuses to executives are paid out in stock options. Stock options glean their value from the price of the stock. If the stock price goes down, then their bonuses lose value or become worthless, essentially meaning that they get reductions in pay or no bonus when the stock price goes down. So if the scandal had no affect on the stock price, why wouldn't they get paid their bonuses? The stock is the best indicator of the public's reaction to the entirety of the bank."
},
{
"docid": "449941",
"title": "",
"text": "\"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\""
},
{
"docid": "301570",
"title": "",
"text": "No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low."
},
{
"docid": "146091",
"title": "",
"text": "\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\""
},
{
"docid": "411617",
"title": "",
"text": "The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question."
},
{
"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": "451737",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\""
},
{
"docid": "534870",
"title": "",
"text": "Why do companies exist? Well, the corporate charter describes why the company exists. Usually the purpose is to enrich the shareholders. The owners of a company want to make money, in other words. There are a number of ways that a shareholder can make money off a stock: As such, maintaining the stock price and dividend payouts are generally the number one concern for any company in the long term. Most of the company's business is going to be directed towards making the company more valuable for a future buyout, or more valuable in terms of what it can pay its shareholders directly. Note that the company doesn't always need to be worried about the specifics of the day-to-day moves of the stock. If it keeps the finances in line - solid profits, margins, earnings growth and the like - and can credibly tell people that it's generally a valuable business, it can usually shrug off any medium-term blips as market craziness. Some companies are more explicitly long-term about things than others (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway basically tells people that it doesn't care all that much about what happens in the short term). Of course, companies are abstractions, and they're run by people. To make the people running the company worry about the stock price, you give them stock. Or stock options, or something like that. A major executive at a big company is likely to have a significant amount of stock. If the company does well, he does well; if it does poorly, he does poorly. Despite a few limitations, this is really a powerful incentive. If a company is losing a lot of money, or if its profits are falling so it's just losing a lot of its value as a business, the owners (stockholders) tend to get upset, and may vote in new management, or launch some sort of shareholder lawsuit. And, as previously noted, to raise funds, a company can also issue new shares to the market as a secondary offering as well (and they can issue fewer shares if the price is high - meaning that whatever the company is worth afterward, the existing owners own proportionally more of it)."
},
{
"docid": "390725",
"title": "",
"text": "Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead."
},
{
"docid": "416822",
"title": "",
"text": "And the 2015 investment article will surly show us the light*!* /s >...Important disclosures: The information provided herein is believed to be reliable; however, EnerCom, Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to its completeness or accuracy. EnerCom’s conclusions are based upon information gathered from sources deemed to be reliable. This note is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or financial instrument of any company mentioned in this note. This note was prepared for general circulation and does not provide investment recommendations specific to individual investors. All readers of the note must make their own investment decisions based upon their specific investment objectives and financial situation utilizing their own financial advisors as they deem necessary. Investors should consider a company’s entire financial and operational structure in making any investment decisions. Past performance of any company discussed in this note should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of future results. EnerCom is a multi-disciplined management consulting services firm that regularly intends to seek business, or currently may be undertaking business, with companies covered on Oil & Gas 360®, and thereby seeks to receive compensation from these companies for its services. In addition, EnerCom, or its principals or employees, may have an economic interest in any of these companies. As a result, readers of EnerCom’s Oil & Gas 360® should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this note. The company or companies covered in this note did not review the note prior to publication. EnerCom, or its principals or employees, may have an economic interest in any of the companies covered in this report or on Oil & Gas 360®. As a result, readers of EnerCom’s reports or Oil & Gas 360® should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report."
},
{
"docid": "513485",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\""
},
{
"docid": "144208",
"title": "",
"text": "The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset. The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently. The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital. What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness. The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice. Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness. When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand. Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock. People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness. In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play. A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness. Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy. An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more. But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash. The happiness report is an annual report of happiness. Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness. For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet. If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton."
},
{
"docid": "117082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\""
},
{
"docid": "165544",
"title": "",
"text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares."
},
{
"docid": "54257",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\""
}
] |
5271 | Why are auto leases stubbornly strict about visa status and how to work around that? | [
{
"docid": "58599",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Uh, you want to lease a car through a dealer? That is the worst possible way to obtain a car. Dealers love leases because it allows them to sell a car for an unnegotiated price and to hide additional fees. It's the most profitable kind of sale for them. The best option would be to buy a used car off of Craigslist or eBay, then sell it again the same way when you leave. If you sell the car for what you paid, then you get the car for a year for free. If you are determined to go through with the expensive, risky and annoying plan of leasing a car, then you should use a leasing agent. I recommend reading some car buying guides before going out into the wilderness with the tigers and bears. Comment on Leasing Tricks Don't get tricked by the \"\"interest rate\"\" game. The whole interest thing is just a distraction to trick you into think you are getting some kind of reasonable deal. The leasing company makes most of their money from fees. For example, if you get into an accident it is a big payday for them. The average person thinks they will never get into an accident, but the reality is that most people get into an accident sooner or later. They also collect big penalties for \"\"maintenance failures\"\". Forget to change the oil? BOOM! money. Forget to comply with manufacture recall? BOOM! more money. Forget to do the annual service? BOOM! more money. Scratch the car? BOOM! more money. The original car mats are missing? BOOM! you just paid $400 for a set of mats that cost the leasing company $25 bucks. The leasing company is counting on the fact that 99% of people will not maintain the car correctly or will damage it in some way. They also usually have all kinds of other bogus fees, so-called \"\"walk-away fees\"\", \"\"disposition fees\"\", \"\"initiation fees\"\". Whatever they think they can get away with. The whole system is calculated to screw you.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "356129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Discounting premiums based on some past history is not unique to auto policies. Other insurers will discount premiums based on past claims history they just don't shout about it as a marketing means to attract customers. Life insurance is underwritten based on your health history; if you want to consider your \"\"preferred\"\" underwriting status based on your clear health history a \"\"discount based on your healthy habits\"\" you're free to do so. All sorts of lines of insurance use all sorts of things to determine an underwriting classes. The fact that auto insurers trumpet specific discounts does not mean the same net effect is not available on other lines of coverage. Most states require auto rates and discounts to be filed and approved with some state regulator, some regulatory bodies even require that certain discounts exist. You could likely negotiate with your business insurance underwriters about a better rate and if the underwriters saw fit they could give you a discount. Auto insurers can offer discounts but are generally beholden to whatever rate sheet is on file with the applicable regulatory body. For the person who downvoted, here's a link to a spreadsheet outlining one of the CA department of insurance allowable rating factor sheets related to auto insurance.\""
},
{
"docid": "145276",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one? I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car. Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance. I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage. Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage. You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately."
},
{
"docid": "396662",
"title": "",
"text": ">If everyone in auto manufacturing labor was replaced by a cheap robot tomorrow, then cars would be cheaper. Why? *All* the auto manufacturers installed robots, so they've *all* got the same incentive to keep prices the same and pocket the additional productivity as profits. Auto manufacturers *have* switched largely to robotic labor. Prices have stayed mostly the same, adjusted for inflation. Quality has increased, which is good, but fewer and fewer people can afford the higher-quality vehicles due to lack of jobs and other factors in the cost of living rising (housing, health-care, education, energy). >video game and plastic surgery business, robot manufacturing, and robot programming Actually, programmers work *more* than auto workers. Auto workers were unionized and thus had a 40-hour work-week, sometimes even with lunch breaks out of work hours instead of leisure hours!"
},
{
"docid": "216857",
"title": "",
"text": "> they just move to a country with better laws. That's happening now with H1B visas and outsourcing. Even here, the government can do simple laws to eliminate this: require to report any work done for the organization outside the country and tax it. Why it has not been done until now is, **AS YOU CAN SEE**, the government care more about business saving money rather than protecting the middle-class. **You can also tax robots!!!!** That's not done either."
},
{
"docid": "185405",
"title": "",
"text": "For a lease, your payment is a function of sale price minus residual value. If the car has a low residual value then the lease payments will be higher. If it has a high residual value then lease payments will be lower but the purchase price at the end of the lease will be higher (potentially even higher than the KBB of the car). There is no gaming the system. Whether you buy now or lease now and buy later, you will be paying for the entire car. Calculate the payments in both scenarios with appropriate interest rates/money factors, sale price, and residual value. This will demonstrate there is no free lunch to be had here. Also, don't forget that financing the vehicle after a three year lease will probably mean a higher interest rate than if you were to finance it all now. With a purchase now you will likely get more favorable financing terms and be able to talk them down on sale price. Leasing will not allow such flexibility generally. Tldr No, that's not how it works. If you plan on owning the car for the duration of a loan (e.g. 5 years) it will be cheaper to just finance now."
},
{
"docid": "422579",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the terms of the lease, but it's hard to imagine a lease that would allow to do this unilaterally with no strings attached. That means it actually depends not on how much you like your landlady, but on how much she likes you. In general, by signing the lease you assume a contractual obligation to pay the rent every month for the entire term of the lease. In theory, you can be sued if you don't do that. In practice, a lot depends on your relationship with your landlord, as well as the rental market in your area. If the landlord can easily find a replacement tenant, they may be willing to allow you to leave early. If the rental market is slow, they will be more likely to hold you to the agreement. Obviously, if you have a good relationship with the landlord, they may be more inclined to go easy on you. As far as telling your landlady you want to terminate the lease early, unless she's a particularly nasty person, you can just go ahead and tell her you'd like to leave early. What you can't do is actually stop paying rent. If you're on reasonably good terms with your landlady, you could just tell her your situation and say you'd like to move out. She may be willing to work out an arrangement where she lists the apartment while you're still living there, allows prospective tenants to view it while it's occupied, and then has you move out if and when someone else wants to move in (e.g., at the end of the month). Again, exactly how this works will probably depend on the rental market. Assuming you're in the USA, here is a useful page with some info on breaking a lease. As mentioned there, the legal details vary by state."
},
{
"docid": "257399",
"title": "",
"text": "that's just not possible. 27% of all US scientists are immigrants and so are 48% of all engineers. America does not produce enough high educated/skilled workers. MS build, or planned on building, a research facility around 5 years ago. They said they can't get enough professors and doctors with adequate education to fill the 9,000 positions. so they asked the INS how to proceed. the INS told them to fill H1b visa applications. that is only once a year and they might get, statistically, only 2000-3000 out of it of they're lucky because most will be rejected or just not get picked (it's a lottery). MS asked Canada, Canada said do whatever, more taxes for us. MS built it in Ontario I think. at the same time Google wrote that angry blog post in their corporate blog about how shitty the H1b situation is."
},
{
"docid": "63042",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he \"\"should\"\" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience. Buying New According to Edmunds and BIGResearch, only a relatively small number of people are ever in the market for a new car at a given point in time. While you do pay quite a bit more to own a brand new car instead of the same car that is 2-3 years old, there are several reasons I'm aware of why people buy new cars: Number 4 is probably the biggest reason, and many people are willing to pay for the certainty of knowing that the miles are correct, the parts are new, the car is in good working condition, etc. Additionally, some makes of cars have much higher resale values than others (such as Hondas), meaning that there isn't as large of a drop in price between a new car and a used car. Many people consider buying a new car the best way to ensure they get the best reliability since they know the initial condition of the car and can care for it meticulously from that point on. This can especially make sense when the buyer intends to keep the car for the like of the car as the buyer will then benefit from having no car payments once it is paid off. Buying Used Buying a used car is the most affordable option, but for a given quality of car the reliability can be a significant potential pitfall. It can be very difficult for a non-professional to tell whether they are getting a good value. Additionally, it is hard for an owner who wants to sell a used car in excellent condition to get the true value of the car, and much easier for an unscrupulous seller to to get the market price by selling to an unaware buyer (the \"\"lemons\"\" problem in economics). You could buy an inspected car with a limited warranty from a retail seller like CarMax or a dealership, but you often pay a significant premium that cancels out much of the biggest reason to buy used - saving money. However, there is an opportunity to save money when buying used if you're willing to compromise on the condition of the car (if you don't care whether a car has hail damage, for example), or if you are able to wait until you find a motivated/distressed seller who needs to sell quickly and is willing to sell at a discount. If cost is your primary priority, buying a used car is likely the best option, but I would recommend the following in all circumstances: If the seller isn't willing to offer both of these, I would walk away. When buying used, you will also need to consider maintenance, which will vary significantly based on the make and model of the car as well as the condition, which is another risk you need to be willing to take on if you choose to buy used.\""
},
{
"docid": "205946",
"title": "",
"text": "Some questions: Will you need a car after 18 months? What are you going to do then? How likely are you able to go over the mileage? Granted paying $300 per month seems somewhat attractive as a fixed cost. However lease are notorious for forcing people into making bad decisions. If your car is over miles, or there is some slight damage (even normal wear and tear), or you customize your car (such as window tint) the dealer can demand extra dollars or force you to purchase the car for more than it is actually worth. The bottom line is leasing is one of the most expensive ways to own a vehicle, and while you have a great income you have a poor net worth. So yes I would say it is somewhat irresponsible for you to own a vehicle. If I was in your shoes, I would cut my gym expenses, cut my retirement contributions to the match, and buy another used car. I understand you may have some burnout over your last car, but it is the best mathematical choice. Having said all that you have a great income and you can absorb a lot of less than efficient decisions. You will probably be okay leasing the car. I would suggest going for a longer term, or cutting something to pay off the student loans earlier. This way there is some cushion between when the lease ends and the student loan ends. This way, when lease turn in comes, you will have some room in your budget to pay some fees as you won't have your student loan payment (assuming around 1400/month) that you can then pay to the dealer."
},
{
"docid": "515530",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> You failed to address the part where I said Tesla wants major car companies to compete. That has been the entire point all along, from the very start. And competition would be good for Tesla, because instead of Tesla alone having to spend resources on educating the ignorant public (e.g. you), this way other auto manufacturers would be able to help. And Tesla would have other yardsticks to compare to, and to say \"\"see, we're better than them.\"\" Tesla welcomes this. I didn't address it because there is no need to. For the electric car industry to work as a whole yes there needs to be more competition. TESLA's competitors, however, are going to wipe the floor with TSLA because TSLA is committing massive capital to old tech. > Auto companies are behind the times because they've outsourced nearly all of their engineering expertise. They are good at volume production and engines. That's most of what's left of any major auto manufacturer. So take away the engine, and they have nothing. To make a compelling EV, they need to start from scratch, and it takes years to develop a car. This is why competition hasn't come, and why compelling competition isn't coming. The only companies with somewhat compelling offerings are those who started very early - BMW and Nissan - or those who have partnered with Tesla - Mercedes and sort-of-Toyota. Porsche has a chance since they still have engineers, but they're dragging their feet. Everyone else is basically fucked. And not just because of the lack of engineering, but because of the nature of large companies. It takes a lot to right a large ship. I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. >Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales. This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. Someone is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. That's just silly. Car companies are in the market to sell cars. Every new car model competes with an existing model. > In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. > Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about. Because automakers have spun off all their expertise, they are not nimble enough to compete in a changing market. Vertical integration is not the answer to everything, but it is a very good way to make your company nimble and keep costs down if you can do it. That's what Tesla is aiming for. It's not a new concept...and the fact that you've never heard of it \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. > THE ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES wouldn't do it. But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. > Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory? Because it sounds like you didn't, which \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" > Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. > > Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars. Not only have they increased production at their own plant tremendously over the course of the last few years, they will end up spending a billion dollars on the Tesla plant.So no, you really, really don't understand it. \"\"We haven't decided yet on the specifics of when or how much investment we will be making,\"\" Panasonic Chief Financial Officer Hideaki Kawai said at a news conference in Tokyo. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panasonic-to-help-build-tesla-battery-plant-2014-07-31-84851841) It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. So the question is, why bother the big fanfare about a plant when all it is is a rough idea? To keep the sucks putting up money.\""
},
{
"docid": "34626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "202049",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sorry but, I have to disagree. The USDA has very strict guidelines around what can and cannot be labeled \"\"Organic\"\". There is certainly an obligation to understand what the various labels mean but, I would be very surprised if Walmart or other major organiztions were not compliant. Where a mom & pop grocery store may be able to get away with mislabeling simply because the USDA/FDA may not get around to checking I think we can be pretty certain that Walmart and other Major chains get checked often. For information about what \"\"Organic\"\" labels entail look here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO\""
},
{
"docid": "349100",
"title": "",
"text": "Economics is the study of the distribution of goods and services, it is not theology, the study of devinity and the after life, perfect worlds where evil is punished and good is satiated with boundless plenty. Capitalism is imperfect because humans are imperfect. The best you can do in an imperfect world is reward people for contributing. The worst you can do is hand out free brownie points based on how closely you align with one interest groups arbitrary definition of need. But then again, I can say this to you until I'm blue in the face. You are stubbornly attached to a false moralistic approach to goods distribution."
},
{
"docid": "376353",
"title": "",
"text": "One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account."
},
{
"docid": "532705",
"title": "",
"text": "Why? Like someone else already said they are smart with their money and pay taxes like everyone. Why should they be punished for it? How about you don't file for auto insurance claim if you can afford the repair? Your argument is down right stupid."
},
{
"docid": "582010",
"title": "",
"text": ">You can sound very intelligent by denoiuncing ideas that challenge the status quo, not do much when it is clear that the status is about to fall off of a cliff Except all those ideas, ending the Fed, going on a gold standard, are returns to *old ideas* that have already been shown to have significant problems. These are not challenging the status quo. These are ignoring well established knowledge and the pain it took mankind to understand *why* these ideas are worse for us than the current system."
},
{
"docid": "554422",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's a status symbol, but that status isn't about money. It's about virtue signaling, and showing that you \"\"care\"\" about the environment. It's the same reason that the Prius didn't sell as well until after it was given a distinctive look, and why nondescript electric versions of Honda's and others don't have similar market share, even when they outperform more visible competitors.\""
},
{
"docid": "272755",
"title": "",
"text": "I am also from Malaysia and I just purchase a property around Klang Valley area. Property market is just like share market. You will never know when is the highest peak point and when is the lowest peak point. Yes. Not only you, but everyone of us. What I would say that, just buy according to your need and your financial status. If you feel that you need a comfortable place to stay rather than renting a room, and buying that property will not burden your financial status too much, why not go for it? The best time to purchase property is perhaps last year when world economic is down turn. But thing is over and can never go back. Since all of us don't have a crystal ball to tell the future, why not just act according to your heart and common sense (Buy according to need) ;)"
},
{
"docid": "29798",
"title": "",
"text": "Something tells me the people buying Tesla aren't doing it because they care about the environment... It's more of a side effect. There's definitely a subset that do but everyone I know around DC who's on the list (and it's at least a few dozen) want the status symbol. Tesla is an icon at this point and if it was a $20k, 500mi range econobox, I guarantee none of these people would be buying despite how much better that would be as a car."
}
] |
5271 | Why are auto leases stubbornly strict about visa status and how to work around that? | [
{
"docid": "221439",
"title": "",
"text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "281572",
"title": "",
"text": "That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol"
},
{
"docid": "460498",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments. Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town). The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them. We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, \"\"Wait, this is something they value\"\" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, \"\"Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing\"\" with something? Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars. As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their \"\"thing\"\" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt). I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing. Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing. We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it.\""
},
{
"docid": "440806",
"title": "",
"text": "In many (most?) cases, luxury cars are leased rather than purchased, so the payments on even an expensive car might not be as high as you'd expect. For simplicity, take a $100,000 car. If you were to buy that in cash or do a standard five-year auto loan, that would be incredibly expensive for all but the wealthiest of people. But a lease is different. When you lease a car, you are financing the car's depreciation over the lease term. So, let's suppose that you're signing up for a three-year lease. The car manufacturer will make an estimate of what that car will be worth when you bring it back in three years (this is called the residual value). If this number is $80,000, that means the lessee is only financing the $20,000 difference between the car's price and its residual value after three years - rather than the full $100,000 MSRP. At the end of the lease, he or she just turns the car back in. Luxury cars are actually especially amenable to leasing because they have excellent brand power - just because of the name on the hood, there are many people who would be happy to pay a lot for a three-year-old Mercedes or BMW. With a mid- or low-range car, the brand is not as powerful and used cars consequentially have a lower residual value (as a percentage of the MSRP) than luxury cars. So, don't look at an $80,000 luxury car and assume that the owner has paying for the entire $80,000."
},
{
"docid": "518624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The other answer has mentioned \"\"factual resident\"\", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that \"\"considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes\"\" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word \"\"may\"\" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume \"\"may\"\" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the \"\"may\"\" coin is \"\"may not\"\". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion, provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece: 1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468. [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the \"\"Centre of vital interests test\"\": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus, regard will be had to his family and social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules.\""
},
{
"docid": "29817",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count: All of the days you were present in the current year, and One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there.\""
},
{
"docid": "162684",
"title": "",
"text": "You should contact the Company who purchased your visa balance and ask/write the following questions: 1. Dispute the charge from Emusic.com as invalid. 2. Instruct that no future charges will be accepted. 3. How come Emusic.com was allowed to debit your account? 4. When did they purchased your visa account? 5. Ask for written verification that they purchased your account from the original company? such as a bill of sale? 6. Ask if the company is a registered debt collector in your state? 7. The FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) may apply to your circumstance(s) and provide for $1,000 in damages to the consumer and $1,000 attorney fees from a third party debt collector per violation. You may want to seek the advice of an attorney to help determine if you have a good cause to sue the company and Emusic. If you did not receive anything form Emusic.com or your contract/agreement ended without a cancelation/early termination fee, ALso, file a written dispute with Emusic.com. Check your credit report. Many companies automatically charge your accounts through automatic payments after termination of the agreement because they get away with it in the U.S., if the consumer does not take steps to dispute the current charge and stop future charges from occurring in the future. Never use auto pay unless required and the service is essential. When using auto pay use a dedicated account not your main checking account. It is less of a pain in the neck to close the account if its your 2nd or 3rd checking account and not your only account."
},
{
"docid": "202049",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sorry but, I have to disagree. The USDA has very strict guidelines around what can and cannot be labeled \"\"Organic\"\". There is certainly an obligation to understand what the various labels mean but, I would be very surprised if Walmart or other major organiztions were not compliant. Where a mom & pop grocery store may be able to get away with mislabeling simply because the USDA/FDA may not get around to checking I think we can be pretty certain that Walmart and other Major chains get checked often. For information about what \"\"Organic\"\" labels entail look here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO\""
},
{
"docid": "515530",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> You failed to address the part where I said Tesla wants major car companies to compete. That has been the entire point all along, from the very start. And competition would be good for Tesla, because instead of Tesla alone having to spend resources on educating the ignorant public (e.g. you), this way other auto manufacturers would be able to help. And Tesla would have other yardsticks to compare to, and to say \"\"see, we're better than them.\"\" Tesla welcomes this. I didn't address it because there is no need to. For the electric car industry to work as a whole yes there needs to be more competition. TESLA's competitors, however, are going to wipe the floor with TSLA because TSLA is committing massive capital to old tech. > Auto companies are behind the times because they've outsourced nearly all of their engineering expertise. They are good at volume production and engines. That's most of what's left of any major auto manufacturer. So take away the engine, and they have nothing. To make a compelling EV, they need to start from scratch, and it takes years to develop a car. This is why competition hasn't come, and why compelling competition isn't coming. The only companies with somewhat compelling offerings are those who started very early - BMW and Nissan - or those who have partnered with Tesla - Mercedes and sort-of-Toyota. Porsche has a chance since they still have engineers, but they're dragging their feet. Everyone else is basically fucked. And not just because of the lack of engineering, but because of the nature of large companies. It takes a lot to right a large ship. I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. >Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales. This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. Someone is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. That's just silly. Car companies are in the market to sell cars. Every new car model competes with an existing model. > In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. > Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about. Because automakers have spun off all their expertise, they are not nimble enough to compete in a changing market. Vertical integration is not the answer to everything, but it is a very good way to make your company nimble and keep costs down if you can do it. That's what Tesla is aiming for. It's not a new concept...and the fact that you've never heard of it \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. > THE ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES wouldn't do it. But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. > Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory? Because it sounds like you didn't, which \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" > Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. > > Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars. Not only have they increased production at their own plant tremendously over the course of the last few years, they will end up spending a billion dollars on the Tesla plant.So no, you really, really don't understand it. \"\"We haven't decided yet on the specifics of when or how much investment we will be making,\"\" Panasonic Chief Financial Officer Hideaki Kawai said at a news conference in Tokyo. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panasonic-to-help-build-tesla-battery-plant-2014-07-31-84851841) It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. So the question is, why bother the big fanfare about a plant when all it is is a rough idea? To keep the sucks putting up money.\""
},
{
"docid": "271769",
"title": "",
"text": "Thanks for including a summary for lurkers in your comment. I didn't realize how quickly I was responding, and I did not know you edited. I appreciate you not letting me look ridiculous to browsers. To change course a little bit, I'd like to talk to the idea that if successful people deserve success, unsuccessful people must deserve their lot also. Outside of money, the biggest thing I think we will leave to our kids is what we have learned about money, nutrition, health, and social interaction. Nothing we know is secret knowledge, but at the same time these are fields that are not taught to competence in school, and plenty of hucksters advertise nonsense that make it difficult to quickly learn what makes sense. If you're a 25 year old guy making 35-40k, and you eat at subway because it is endorsed by the American heart association and you assume it's healthy, and you spend 30% of your pre tax income on a house because your mortgage broker said that's normal and your financial advisor said houses are assets, and you buy what you like on credit cards and pay monthly minimums, and you take out an auto lease or a 6 year loan on a purchase to keep payments low, and you diversify what little you have left into mutual funds and bonds, you are doing two things - you are acting like a totally responsible young adult according to societal norms and people who are supposed to give you advice, and you are totally fucking yourself. You are burdening yourself with debt, you aren't investing in yourself, you're neutering your money's ability to help you live a life you actually want to live, and you are shackling yourself to monthly payments that limit your ability to make choices about what you want and how you want to live. Is that your fault? You followed common wisdom and your trusted advisors. Unless you happen to see a different way, or someone comes along and tells you otherwise, you may never know what opportunities you could've had. I'll even concede that having the opportunity to think differently may be luck. But here is where I have a point of contention. What if you've concluded generational wealth is simply luck by the time you have someone try to show you differently? You may dismiss your opportunity as bullshit, and remained trapped in the standard American day to day wage/debt slavery. This is why I hate these semantics so much - I think they rob people of their opportunities."
},
{
"docid": "376353",
"title": "",
"text": "One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account."
},
{
"docid": "246882",
"title": "",
"text": "I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating."
},
{
"docid": "141332",
"title": "",
"text": "Matt Levine talked about a cute scam that this resembles, a kind of extended short squeeze. You manipulate up the stock of a company, so that it's obviously way above the fundamental value. Word will get out. Then the shorts come in. But the value remains stubbornly high. All the stock is held by a few insiders, but they didn't manipulate the stock price to do a pump and dump. They did it to milk the shorts on borrow cost."
},
{
"docid": "284393",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The article ends saying Steve's success was not attributed to him being an asshole but, I think it did. Steve figured out how to tap into a human desire that ~30% of the market who can afford and is in the market for an iPhone has. The desire to be \"\"smug\"\" and have the \"\"new and greatest\"\"; he marketed that to the predisposed \"\"asshole types.\"\" Now don't down vote me yet, hear me out. I am not saying all iphone users are in this category but: Using men as a sample here. We like toys, and having the best toy out of your peers is something of a status symbol. Think back in the days of old when having a sword or weapon was the normal thing to carry around. The man with the most elaborate, or bigger or advanced sward/weapon was revered; and could use it to brag. Now a days there are a lot more beta males (yes I am taking it there) than in the \"\"rugged past\"\" due to institutions like police and insurance allowing for these men to get mates and pass along their genes. This allows for the propagation of Dick measuring rituals via possessions rather than actions. Look around at all your iphone owners how tough are they really, how often do they complain about trivial shit that doesnt matter or do nothing about it. How often do they say \"\"check out this cool new (in reality useless) app I have\"\"? This is the personality that Steve cornered and marketed to. As for women, women like to have the newest and nicest things as well for a different reason. They use it to show off their desirability to other women in the big race that women run: women only care about what other women think of them, they care about men in the sense that they can brag to other women how many men are after them- giving them status among their peers. The iPhone is marketed like jewelry to women, an accessory that complements them, like earings and a purse. And for all the people who say they like it for the usefulness and such, okay you are truly 10% the 100% of his market. That is the excuse apple can use as the conscious part of the advertising, and the few people that use it for those reason make the vast minority. Because realistically an Android and a BB can do many things, and some better than the ipone for WAY less. If you'd like to know I used to own a BB was going to get an iphone, but wanted to \"\"disconnect\"\" from the google everything that comes up in conversation, email always on, facebook always on lifestyle.- So I got a pos phone that i dont worry about dropping, getting wet, etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "308383",
"title": "",
"text": "My experience is in the United States only. In the past, American Express marketed its products as more exclusive and prestigious than other cards. There was an attempt to give the impression that cardholders were more qualified financially. In return, fees were higher both to merchants and to cardholders. At the time (early 1990's), it was not common to use credit cards for small purchases, such as groceries or fast food. Credit cards were used for larger purchases such as jewelry or electronics or dinner in a nicer restaurant. Once it became popular to use credit cards for everyday purchases, the demand for customers using credit cards changed to the highest number of people instead of people of higher status. At that point, Visa (and to a lesser extent Mastercard) transaction volume increased dramatically. Merchants needed the largest number of customers with cards, not the most financially stable. As Visa volume grew, and people started using Visa for small purchases, the use of American Express decreased as their habits changed (once someone got used to pulling out Visa, they did it in every situation). Merchants are less willing to go through the extra hassle of accepting cards that are used by fewer people. Over time, I suspect this process led to the gap between Visa and American Express. As a merchant, in order to accept credit cards, you have to set up a bank account and maintain a merchant account. Accepting Visa, MC and Discover can all be done through one account, but American Express has traditionally required a separate relationship, as well as its own set of rules and fees that were generally higher. Since there are relatively few American Express cardholders compared to Visa, there is doubt about whether it is worth it accept the card. It depends upon the customer base. Fine restaurants still generally accept American Express."
},
{
"docid": "192366",
"title": "",
"text": "The idea is to positively identify you with properly issued government ID. If you show up with your passport, visa, and another form of government-issued identification which the banker can recognize and use (for example - international driver's license, a US-State driver's license, EU internal ID, etc) - it will be quick and painless. Usually, at least two distinct forms of identification are required from foreigners: passport and something else, and not the visa stamped in a passport, that just shoes to show your status upon your W9/W8 requirements may be based. You'll probably be asked for a TIN before any payments are made to you by the bank. If you don't have anything credible to show as your identification it will be equally quick and painless, except that you'd be leaving without a bank account. If your identity cannot be established properly there and then - they will not serve you."
},
{
"docid": "30299",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As indicated in comments, this is common practice in the US as well as EU. For example, in this Fox Business article, a user had basically the same experience: their card was replaced but without the specific merchant being disclosed. When the reporter contacted Visa, they were told: \"\"We also believe that the public interest is best served by quickly notifying financial institutions with the information necessary to protect themselves and their cardholders from fraud losses. Even a slight delay in notification to financial institutions could be costly,” the spokesperson said in an e-mail statement. “Visa works with the breached entity to collect the necessary information and provides payment card issuers with the affected account numbers so they can take steps to protect consumers through independent fraud monitoring, and if needed, reissuing cards. The most critical information needed is the affected accounts, which Visa works to provide as quickly as possible.” What they're not saying, of course, is that it's in Visa's best interests that merchants let Visa know right away when a leak occurs, without having to think about whether it's going to screw that merchant over in the press. If the merchant has to consider PR, they may not let the networks know in as timely of a fashion - they may at least wait until they've verified the issue in more detail, or even wait until they've found who to pin it on so they don't get blamed. But beyond that, the point is that it's easier for the network (Visa/Mastercard/etc.) to have a system that's just a list of card numbers to submit to the bank for re-issuing; nobody there really cares which merchant was at fault, they just want to re-issue the cards quickly. Letting you know who's at fault is separate. There's little reason for the issuing bank to ever know; you should find out from the merchant themselves or from the network (and in my experience, usually the former). Eventually you may well find out - the article suggest that: [T]he situation is common, but there is some good news: consumers do in many cases find out the source of the breach. But of course doesn't go into detail about numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "216857",
"title": "",
"text": "> they just move to a country with better laws. That's happening now with H1B visas and outsourcing. Even here, the government can do simple laws to eliminate this: require to report any work done for the organization outside the country and tax it. Why it has not been done until now is, **AS YOU CAN SEE**, the government care more about business saving money rather than protecting the middle-class. **You can also tax robots!!!!** That's not done either."
},
{
"docid": "95189",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think that they ask you for your citizenship status when you apply in a dealership. At least I don't remember being asked. I know of at least 3 people from my closest circle of friends who are in various immigration statuses (including one on F1) and got an auto loan from a dealership without a problem and with good rates. They have to ask for your immigration status on online applications because of the post-9/11 law changes. Edit to allow Dilip to retract his unjustified downvote: Chase and Wells Fargo have a reliable track of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents."
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
5271 | Why are auto leases stubbornly strict about visa status and how to work around that? | [
{
"docid": "67663",
"title": "",
"text": "In the U.S., most car dealers provide lease financing through one company (usually a subsidiary of the auto manufacturer). Whereas they provide loan financing through a variety of companies, some of whom offer very high interest rate loans and sell the loans as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Have you checked whether Chase or First Tech Credit Union offers a suitable car lease?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "30299",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As indicated in comments, this is common practice in the US as well as EU. For example, in this Fox Business article, a user had basically the same experience: their card was replaced but without the specific merchant being disclosed. When the reporter contacted Visa, they were told: \"\"We also believe that the public interest is best served by quickly notifying financial institutions with the information necessary to protect themselves and their cardholders from fraud losses. Even a slight delay in notification to financial institutions could be costly,” the spokesperson said in an e-mail statement. “Visa works with the breached entity to collect the necessary information and provides payment card issuers with the affected account numbers so they can take steps to protect consumers through independent fraud monitoring, and if needed, reissuing cards. The most critical information needed is the affected accounts, which Visa works to provide as quickly as possible.” What they're not saying, of course, is that it's in Visa's best interests that merchants let Visa know right away when a leak occurs, without having to think about whether it's going to screw that merchant over in the press. If the merchant has to consider PR, they may not let the networks know in as timely of a fashion - they may at least wait until they've verified the issue in more detail, or even wait until they've found who to pin it on so they don't get blamed. But beyond that, the point is that it's easier for the network (Visa/Mastercard/etc.) to have a system that's just a list of card numbers to submit to the bank for re-issuing; nobody there really cares which merchant was at fault, they just want to re-issue the cards quickly. Letting you know who's at fault is separate. There's little reason for the issuing bank to ever know; you should find out from the merchant themselves or from the network (and in my experience, usually the former). Eventually you may well find out - the article suggest that: [T]he situation is common, but there is some good news: consumers do in many cases find out the source of the breach. But of course doesn't go into detail about numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "162684",
"title": "",
"text": "You should contact the Company who purchased your visa balance and ask/write the following questions: 1. Dispute the charge from Emusic.com as invalid. 2. Instruct that no future charges will be accepted. 3. How come Emusic.com was allowed to debit your account? 4. When did they purchased your visa account? 5. Ask for written verification that they purchased your account from the original company? such as a bill of sale? 6. Ask if the company is a registered debt collector in your state? 7. The FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) may apply to your circumstance(s) and provide for $1,000 in damages to the consumer and $1,000 attorney fees from a third party debt collector per violation. You may want to seek the advice of an attorney to help determine if you have a good cause to sue the company and Emusic. If you did not receive anything form Emusic.com or your contract/agreement ended without a cancelation/early termination fee, ALso, file a written dispute with Emusic.com. Check your credit report. Many companies automatically charge your accounts through automatic payments after termination of the agreement because they get away with it in the U.S., if the consumer does not take steps to dispute the current charge and stop future charges from occurring in the future. Never use auto pay unless required and the service is essential. When using auto pay use a dedicated account not your main checking account. It is less of a pain in the neck to close the account if its your 2nd or 3rd checking account and not your only account."
},
{
"docid": "287896",
"title": "",
"text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter."
},
{
"docid": "34626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "125424",
"title": "",
"text": "erm... a) H1b applications went down over 90% in the last two years because the US does not offer anything better anymore (keep in mind, H1b means a Corp. vouchers for you and you can only stay as employee in the country, you can switch employer but you can't just start a startup or something. fired and no new employer? you get kicked out of the country. which also happens 6 years later no matter what because the visa only lasts 3+3 years and is a lottery so applying doesnt mean you actually get it. so why come in the first place?) b) H1b visa holders must be payed appropriate. c) if I can get hired by MS in the US, I can also work for a US office anywhere else, and they have plenty. d) H1b means you have either 4 years university possibly with degree or you can prove that you worked 3 years for each university year and have therefore a minimum of 12 years job experience in the field you're hired. again, if Microsoft, why in the US? pay in your own country is probably better. the whole worker visa system is doomed. they should give out IT greencards like Germany tried it many years ago to bring in foreign talent. a visa that is not chained to the employer that vouched for you but let's you open up a startup and stay for longer. h1b pretty much let's you stay in a country that takes taxes for you, you have to obey their laws but you get no benefits and 6 years later you get kicked out. if you want to come back after 6 years you have to stay out at least 1 years, then you're allowed to participate again in the yearly H1b lottery which means almost 2 years after you got kicked out you might win again and you can return to work for the company. seriously, would you like to be in that situation? building a life in a new country with a countdown attached to it? (I just left the US after 6 years on H1b) edit: btw. they are already charging 8 or 12k since 2012 per application. up from 1500 - one of the explanations why applications are down."
},
{
"docid": "108390",
"title": "",
"text": "There were several incidences of cash shortages in the Danish system recently. On particular saturdays when the streets were bloated with shoppers, you could see the queues for the ATMs stretching for 40-50 yards, and people shaking their heads about why their cards didnt work in the shops. They have a separate national system to visa called Dankort which everyone is very proud of. But it is curiously prone to failures from time to time. Large cash transactions (over 10,000 DKK) are monitored and questioned verbally when withdrawn or deposited in banks. Interesting also how Danish banks are the most heavily leveraged in Europe..."
},
{
"docid": "202049",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sorry but, I have to disagree. The USDA has very strict guidelines around what can and cannot be labeled \"\"Organic\"\". There is certainly an obligation to understand what the various labels mean but, I would be very surprised if Walmart or other major organiztions were not compliant. Where a mom & pop grocery store may be able to get away with mislabeling simply because the USDA/FDA may not get around to checking I think we can be pretty certain that Walmart and other Major chains get checked often. For information about what \"\"Organic\"\" labels entail look here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO\""
},
{
"docid": "71083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> You're the one arguing for a change away from the status quo here, to something that not only is entirely untested but requires everyone to do it at once AND everyone to think just like you do for it to 'work properly'. It's nothing but hypotheticals, yet you're saying the burden of proof is on me to 'prove' that your hypothetical scenarios won't work? I don't have to prove anything when I'm advocating for not being a part of your system. I am in no way advocating that you be forced into mine. I'm not advocating any positive action towards you, nor anyone else. Simply arguing against the status quo doesn't place a burden of proof upon me. > That's not a thing you can do, you can't prove a negative. Then don't make that claim. Easy as that. I laid out how the market could deal with a court system, and you devolved into making unsupported claims. When we get back to what does make sense, we can have productive conversation. It's not productive to use baseless conjecture and unsupported claims. > All i can do is say look around at all the free markets and stateless populations we have now living in perfect harmony with each other and the environment. Oh wait. They don't exist. Because they don't work in the real world. Wrong. It does not follow that because something does not exist that it does not work. > Any advantage is going to be used to bludgeon the competition with until you have a monopoly/quasi-state You have no evidence to support this. Why are you reverting to this nonsense? > it relies on the population being informed in and believing in the system enough to make a conscious effort to not buy the cheaper goods at the store with the bad business practices, or potentially drive further to a different store if it's the store doing the bad practice! No, it does not. This is a straw man. A voluntary society doesn't preclude the possibility of people buying bad food or something like that. It doesn't even preclude the possibility of third-party assurances to prevent bad food. It just doesn't have a built-in monopoly on assurance services that you have to use in order to buy/sell. > So you're saying there can never be a truly free market then? No. People buy and sell freely all of the time. Ever bought something from Craigslist? Ebay? Silk Road? I'd say those are pretty much free markets. > You had little kids getting their arms ripped off by textile looms for fucks sake, people working 14 hour days. But it made more money than working in the fields, so #worth, right? You're conveniently leaving out how kids worked, people toiled all day and still starved to death as the alternative up until industrialization allowed a better quality of life. It's not like they could have just passed a fucking law and mandated a 40 hour week and instantly had prosperity. It was because they did grind their way through the Industrial Revolution that we're able to live lives of leisure and prosperity. If you think that government action can get people out of poverty by decree then tell it to the third world countries that are still developing. I'm sure they'd be all ears. > Because the pooling of vast resources for disaster relief is something that states do? That they do it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen without the state on a voluntary basis. The funding for all of these programs combined is easily less than, what, a quarter of the government's budget? If the people who made this same objection put their money where their mouth is, there would be no shortage of funding. People from the left and the right alike claim that they want these things, so which is it? Are you telling me that there are just millions and millions of people who virtue signal about humanitarian efforts? > This is my point, neither you nor I have any evidence to base this off rather than a tendency for people to be utter bastards to each other, looking at history. You're postulating that if all governments dissipated in a puff of smoke, there wouldn't be huge conflict in the resulting power vacuum? Actually I don't think that immediately destroying governments will create the best outcomes, as that usually happens violently and results in someone wanting to fill the roles performed by government. Instead, I think that based upon history individuals are less likely to be violent when they aren't acting on behalf of governments, and they can and will find alternatives to the state that will replace it over time *if they are not violently stopped.* Here are some examples: 1. I would rather be entirely left alone by the state police agents and allowed to use my own private security. I would not be taxed for state agents and would instead pay out of pocket. This would likely lower the cost since they would be interested in preventing losses rather than busting people for parking tickets, speeding tickets, drug offenses, civil asset forfeiture, etc. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 2. I would rather have private large-scale defense since it would not be involved in international wars of aggression. I would not be taxed and would instead pay out of pocket. All else equal, this would be less expensive and less dangerous since resources would only be used for defense. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 3. I would rather have a private system of healthcare rather than a government one, being free to not pay into Medicare/Medicaid. This, along with eliminating certificates of need, monopolization by the AMA, eliminating IP protections, and the like would lower the cost more than nationalization would and would also allow providers to better align with my preferences. Would you not agree that this is a superior system? > Yeah, good one. There weren't any Anarchists in a position to do any of that. Great straw man. Actually the purported left-wing \"\"anarchists\"\" in Spain did carry out what is called the Red Terror. I put that in quotes because I do not agree with their methods or their ideology. Change must be done through the market, not through violence. > WHY is the burden of proof on the 'statists'? It's the Anarchists who are arguing for the change in the status Quo. Because appeals to tradition are not rational arguments and anarchists are not advocating for positive action against you. Statists are arguing that others be subject to their government. If a person is trying to argue against his own enslavement, he wouldn't have the burden of proof simply because he had been enslaved for some time. > You're the one making the claim that it would be a better system here with nothing to back it up On the contrary, I do have something to back it up: the market responds better to consumer preferences on an individual level than governments do. If you disagree with me on healthcare and want a collective system, the market can put you with other like-minded individuals and me with those who share my views. A state cannot. > why do we have states right now? You're conflating violence and efficiency. That's like saying \"\"if kids have such great ideas, why are they still living under their parent's rule?\"\" It's not because the ideas are bad, it's because the parents are keeping them there. States don't compete, they rule with violence. The notion of creating a market for violence to stop rule by violence is contradictory.\""
},
{
"docid": "185405",
"title": "",
"text": "For a lease, your payment is a function of sale price minus residual value. If the car has a low residual value then the lease payments will be higher. If it has a high residual value then lease payments will be lower but the purchase price at the end of the lease will be higher (potentially even higher than the KBB of the car). There is no gaming the system. Whether you buy now or lease now and buy later, you will be paying for the entire car. Calculate the payments in both scenarios with appropriate interest rates/money factors, sale price, and residual value. This will demonstrate there is no free lunch to be had here. Also, don't forget that financing the vehicle after a three year lease will probably mean a higher interest rate than if you were to finance it all now. With a purchase now you will likely get more favorable financing terms and be able to talk them down on sale price. Leasing will not allow such flexibility generally. Tldr No, that's not how it works. If you plan on owning the car for the duration of a loan (e.g. 5 years) it will be cheaper to just finance now."
},
{
"docid": "2705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm impressed. She must have a substantial income to agree to a $500/month car payment. I imagine her income is about 20K per month for that to make sense. What kind of work does she do? To answer your question, typical lease do not work the way you describe. Paying an extra $2000 will allow you to skip 4 payments (provided the payments were exactly $500) any time in the future. It does not modify the terms of the lease which would include the payment amount. Also one does not receive a fiance charge reduction benefit as with a loan. Essentially you are providing a loan to the leasing company for free. To be explicit you cannot tell the mortgage company anything as she is applying for the loan, not you. She can tell the mortgage company the new payment is $400, but she would be falsifying the application which is not advisable. Perhaps the mortgage company is doing her a favor. They are indicating her life is out of control financially. Either she is attempting to purchase way to much home or her consumer debt is out of control. It could be a combination of both. My first paragraph was written to be \"\"tongue in check\"\" in order to demonstrate absurdity. Without a substantial income and an substantial net worth, a 500/month car payment is simply ridiculous. While it is someone average, when you compare it to the average income (~54K/year) you understand why 78% of US households live paycheck-to-paycheck (are broke), and have no retirement savings. For your and her sake, please stop giving all your hard earned money to banks.\""
},
{
"docid": "396662",
"title": "",
"text": ">If everyone in auto manufacturing labor was replaced by a cheap robot tomorrow, then cars would be cheaper. Why? *All* the auto manufacturers installed robots, so they've *all* got the same incentive to keep prices the same and pocket the additional productivity as profits. Auto manufacturers *have* switched largely to robotic labor. Prices have stayed mostly the same, adjusted for inflation. Quality has increased, which is good, but fewer and fewer people can afford the higher-quality vehicles due to lack of jobs and other factors in the cost of living rising (housing, health-care, education, energy). >video game and plastic surgery business, robot manufacturing, and robot programming Actually, programmers work *more* than auto workers. Auto workers were unionized and thus had a 40-hour work-week, sometimes even with lunch breaks out of work hours instead of leisure hours!"
},
{
"docid": "582010",
"title": "",
"text": ">You can sound very intelligent by denoiuncing ideas that challenge the status quo, not do much when it is clear that the status is about to fall off of a cliff Except all those ideas, ending the Fed, going on a gold standard, are returns to *old ideas* that have already been shown to have significant problems. These are not challenging the status quo. These are ignoring well established knowledge and the pain it took mankind to understand *why* these ideas are worse for us than the current system."
},
{
"docid": "515530",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> You failed to address the part where I said Tesla wants major car companies to compete. That has been the entire point all along, from the very start. And competition would be good for Tesla, because instead of Tesla alone having to spend resources on educating the ignorant public (e.g. you), this way other auto manufacturers would be able to help. And Tesla would have other yardsticks to compare to, and to say \"\"see, we're better than them.\"\" Tesla welcomes this. I didn't address it because there is no need to. For the electric car industry to work as a whole yes there needs to be more competition. TESLA's competitors, however, are going to wipe the floor with TSLA because TSLA is committing massive capital to old tech. > Auto companies are behind the times because they've outsourced nearly all of their engineering expertise. They are good at volume production and engines. That's most of what's left of any major auto manufacturer. So take away the engine, and they have nothing. To make a compelling EV, they need to start from scratch, and it takes years to develop a car. This is why competition hasn't come, and why compelling competition isn't coming. The only companies with somewhat compelling offerings are those who started very early - BMW and Nissan - or those who have partnered with Tesla - Mercedes and sort-of-Toyota. Porsche has a chance since they still have engineers, but they're dragging their feet. Everyone else is basically fucked. And not just because of the lack of engineering, but because of the nature of large companies. It takes a lot to right a large ship. I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. >Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales. This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. Someone is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. That's just silly. Car companies are in the market to sell cars. Every new car model competes with an existing model. > In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. > Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about. Because automakers have spun off all their expertise, they are not nimble enough to compete in a changing market. Vertical integration is not the answer to everything, but it is a very good way to make your company nimble and keep costs down if you can do it. That's what Tesla is aiming for. It's not a new concept...and the fact that you've never heard of it \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. > THE ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES wouldn't do it. But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. > Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory? Because it sounds like you didn't, which \"\"confirms my view that you don't understand the issues.\"\" > Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. > > Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars. Not only have they increased production at their own plant tremendously over the course of the last few years, they will end up spending a billion dollars on the Tesla plant.So no, you really, really don't understand it. \"\"We haven't decided yet on the specifics of when or how much investment we will be making,\"\" Panasonic Chief Financial Officer Hideaki Kawai said at a news conference in Tokyo. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panasonic-to-help-build-tesla-battery-plant-2014-07-31-84851841) It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. So the question is, why bother the big fanfare about a plant when all it is is a rough idea? To keep the sucks putting up money.\""
},
{
"docid": "516631",
"title": "",
"text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed."
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "356129",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Discounting premiums based on some past history is not unique to auto policies. Other insurers will discount premiums based on past claims history they just don't shout about it as a marketing means to attract customers. Life insurance is underwritten based on your health history; if you want to consider your \"\"preferred\"\" underwriting status based on your clear health history a \"\"discount based on your healthy habits\"\" you're free to do so. All sorts of lines of insurance use all sorts of things to determine an underwriting classes. The fact that auto insurers trumpet specific discounts does not mean the same net effect is not available on other lines of coverage. Most states require auto rates and discounts to be filed and approved with some state regulator, some regulatory bodies even require that certain discounts exist. You could likely negotiate with your business insurance underwriters about a better rate and if the underwriters saw fit they could give you a discount. Auto insurers can offer discounts but are generally beholden to whatever rate sheet is on file with the applicable regulatory body. For the person who downvoted, here's a link to a spreadsheet outlining one of the CA department of insurance allowable rating factor sheets related to auto insurance.\""
},
{
"docid": "395432",
"title": "",
"text": "There's so much wrong in such a small space here... Why do you think this is a component of working in government? Is it a component of working in the private sector? Non-profits? Military (Which is still government)? If someone specializes in shale gas extraction commercial rate setting for the purposes of royalty calculation, why do they need to remember what it's like to be Joe Sixpack? Why do NSA administrators who monitor foreign intelligence channels need to remember what it's like to bargain shop? The argument is nonsense from the ground up. At the same time, how is flying coach teaching them this *valuable* lesson? And why do you think they can't remember it without flying coach? Plus, I'm not sure you understand what forms a bubble. I fly coach. I don't interact with anyone around me. And the government officials we're talking about are not so well compensated they don't have ordinary lives. Instead, the concern you're really alluding to is that homogenous groups of professionals tend to develop institutional blind spots. Flying coach won't solve that."
},
{
"docid": "460498",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments. Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town). The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them. We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, \"\"Wait, this is something they value\"\" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, \"\"Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing\"\" with something? Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars. As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their \"\"thing\"\" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt). I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing. Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing. We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it.\""
}
] |
5331 | Exercises of employee share options | [
{
"docid": "200784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "41967",
"title": "",
"text": "For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned."
},
{
"docid": "440458",
"title": "",
"text": "1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices. As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question."
},
{
"docid": "261258",
"title": "",
"text": "I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year."
},
{
"docid": "362473",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "538054",
"title": "",
"text": "It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason."
},
{
"docid": "195152",
"title": "",
"text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk."
},
{
"docid": "213767",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\""
},
{
"docid": "409190",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\""
},
{
"docid": "259178",
"title": "",
"text": "You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it. You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement. Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy. You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15. Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case."
},
{
"docid": "89484",
"title": "",
"text": "You could have both options exercised (and assigned to you) on the same day, but I don't think you could lose money on both on the same day. The reason is that while exercises are immediate, assignments are processed after the markets close at the end of each day. See http://www.888options.com/help/faq/assignment.jsp for details. So you would get both assignments at the same time, that night. The net effect should be that you don't own any stock (someone would put you the stock, then it'd be called away) and you don't have the options anymore. You should have incoming cash of $1500 selling the stock to the call exerciser and outgoing cash of $1300 buying from the put exerciser, right? So you would have no more options but $200 more cash in your account in the morning. You bought at 13 and sold at 15. This options position is an agreement to buy at 13 and sell at 15 at someone else's option. The way you lose money is if one of the options isn't exercised while the other is, i.e. if the stock is below 13 so nobody is going to opt to buy from you at 15, but they'll sell to you at 13; or above 15 so nobody is going to opt to sell to you at 13, but they'll buy from you at 15. You make money if neither is exercised (you keep the premium you sold for) or both are exercised (you keep the gap between the two, plus the premium). Having both exercised is surely rare, since early exercise is rare to begin with, and tends to happen when options are deep in the money; so you'd expect both to be exercised if both are deep in the money at some point. Having both be exercised on the same day ... can't be common, but it's maybe most likely just before expiration with minimal time value, if the stock moves around quickly so both options are in the money at some point during the day."
},
{
"docid": "401447",
"title": "",
"text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price."
},
{
"docid": "163566",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have a Solo 401(k). You can fund it with cash, or I believe, with shares of your own company. You can't pull in other assets such as the ISOs from another employer. I see why that's desirable, but it's not allowed. You wrote \"\"this will mitigate all tax complications with employee stock options.\"\" But - you can't transfer the ISOs from your job into your Solo 401(k). As littleadv notes, it's self dealing. Once the ISO is exercised there's no hiding the gain into that 401(k).\""
},
{
"docid": "575741",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\""
},
{
"docid": "336541",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is unlimited risk in taking a naked call option position. The only risk in taking a covered call position is that you will be required to sell your shares for less than the going market price. I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer given here. You would not lose the amount you paid to buy the shares. Naked Call Option Suppose take a naked call option position by selling a call option. Since there is no limit on how high the price of the underlying share can go, you can be forced to either buy back the option at a very high price, or, in the case that the option is exercised, you can be force. to buy the underlying shares at a very high price and then sell them to the option holder at a very low price. For example, suppose you sell an Apple call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50, and for this you receive a payment of $250. Now, if the price of Apple skyrockets to, say, $1000, then you would either have to buy back the option for about $90,000 = 100 x ($1000-$100), or, if the holder exercised the option, then you would need to buy 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share, costing you $100,000, and then sell them to the option holder at the strike price of $100 for $10,000 = 100 x $100. In either case, you would show a loss of $90,000 on the share transaction, which would be slightly offset by a $250 credit for the premium you received selling the call. There is no limit on the potential loss since there is no limit on how high the underlying share price can go. Covered Call Option Consider now the case of a covered call option. Since you hold the underlying shares, any loss you make on the option position would be \"\"covered\"\" by the profit you make on the underlying shares. Again, suppose you own 100 Apple shares and sell a call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50 to earn a payment of $250. If the price of Apple skyrockets to $1000, then there are again two possible scenarios. One, you buy back the option at a premium of about $900 costing you $90,000. In order to cover this cost you would then sell your 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share to realise $100,000 = 100 x $1000. On the other hand, if your option is exercised, then you would deliver your 100 Apple shares to the option holder at the contracted strike price of $100 per share, thus receiving just $10,000 = 100 x $100. The only \"\"loss\"\" is that you have had to sell your shares for much less than the market price.\""
},
{
"docid": "17661",
"title": "",
"text": "The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)"
},
{
"docid": "201794",
"title": "",
"text": "Suppose you're writing a put with a strike price of 80. Say the share's(underlying asset) price goes down to 70. So the holder of the put will exercise the option. Ie he has a 'right to sell' a share worth 70 for rs 80. Whereas a put option writer has an 'obligation to buy' at rs 80 a share trading at rs 70. Always think from the perspective of the holder. If the holder exercises the option, the writer will suffer a loss. Maximum loss he suffers will be the break even FSP, which is Strike price reduced by the premium paid.. If he doesn't exercise the option the writer will make a profit, which can maximum be the put premium received."
},
{
"docid": "43497",
"title": "",
"text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently."
},
{
"docid": "415684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\""
},
{
"docid": "507828",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\""
}
] |
5343 | “International credit report” for French nationals? | [
{
"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": "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": "319817",
"title": "",
"text": "Summarized article: Huawei and ZTE, China's two largest telecommunications companies, disputed the findings of a report by the House Intelligence Committee which determined that both companies pose a national security threat. The report determined that using equipment from Huawei and ZTE could provide opportunities for Chinese intelligence services to tamper or spy on US telecommunications networks. Huawei and ZTE failed to cooperate with a year-long investigation and to fully explain their relationship with the Chinese government, according to the report. Additionally, the report noted Huawei's pattern of illegal behavior in the US, including intellectual property violations, immigration violations and bribery and corruption. Committee officials intend to refer their findings to federal law enforcement agencies. In response to the report, both Huawei and ZTE said they fully cooperated with the congressional investigation and called the findings baseless. They also deny they are controlled by the Chinese government. Additionally, Huawei said it believes the congressional findings were predetermined in order to impede competition and block Chinese telecommunications companies from entering the US market. Although Huawei often refers to its business operations in the United Kingdom to show the company's integrity, Huawei has been consistently passed over for contracts in the US. Huawei was also blocked from bidding on an Australian national contract in March. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit"
},
{
"docid": "586872",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2017-annual-report) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Chapter 1: Economic Freedom of the World in 2015The authors of the report, James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Joshua Hall, provide an overview of the report and discuss why economic freedom is important. > Chapter 3: Adjusting for Gender Disparity in Economic Freedom and Why It MattersBy Rosemarie FikeThe adjustment for gender disparity applied this year to Area 2, Legal System and Property Rights, of the index published in Economic Freedom of the World takes into account the fact that in many nations women are not legally accorded the same level of economic freedom as men. > &quot;Chapter 5: Economic Freedom in South Africa and the Constraints on Economic PolicyBy Richard J. GrantThe index published in the Economic Freedom of the World covers two very distinct eras in South African history: the apartheid era and that after the transition to the&quot;new South Africa&quot; in 1994. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73t0jg/economic_freedom_of_the_world_2017_annual_report/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~220611 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*: **Economic**^#1 **Freedom**^#2 **nations**^#3 **index**^#4 **Country**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "475527",
"title": "",
"text": "The bank number is part of the IBAN number, so the SWIFT code is actually redundant. It is still required for international payments because every country has its own payment infrastructure. The SWIFT code helps to route it to the correct region without having to know every single bank in that region. It is usually not needed for national payments, but banks ask for it anyway so that both national and international payments follow the same process. When you enter a wrong SWIFT, then this is what will happen: When the SWIFT code does exist, then: In the internet age, it should be possible for all of this to happen within seconds, but it will still take a few days because... reasons. IBAN numbers are globally unique, so when you entered the correct IBAN there is no chance that the money will arrive on a different account than you intended to (Also, the first two digits after the country code are a checksum, so when you accidently make a typo while entering an IBAN, there is a 99% chance that this will be detected automatically)."
},
{
"docid": "88918",
"title": "",
"text": "Look at the tech used. Bitcoin a a very small numbers of others have their own blockchains. Nearly all other coins are build on Ethereum. Ethereum is like iOS for blockchain. One can build public or private versions. The fuel / transaction currency of the Ethereum playtform (think distributed operating system) is Ether (ETH) The Ethereum guys were very clever and got the biggest guys deploy involved multi nationals.. all of them have internal ethereum projects to capture their internal value distribution systems. But they ar already planning to manage their entire supply chains with this. Think: Com apt gets order via a distributed order system . These orders are legally binding. The bank of the producer Dan now issue a credit that flows through 10+ levels to suppliers and they will no longer be held up by week if not Knoth long PurchaseOrder processes. => these types of things is what the EEA is all about. At the same time Ethereum has much different transaction limits and has clear paths for increasing those limits in the future. Try transfer bitcoin right now :) The might be a lot of other coins coming but the question you should ask yourself: do you think there will there be a competitor to ethereum as general purpose blockchain platform in any near / mid term future. Keep in mind the already unreadably broad industry support. Depending on the answer to this ether is a great investment or just a good one. Either way :) Not saying other coins won't yield higher results but if you invest in the ether you invest in the currency the transactions of the others us calculated at. So in any case if you believe in coins there will be uptake on Ether."
},
{
"docid": "297544",
"title": "",
"text": "Ev_Ehrlich > Dr. Everett M. Ehrlich is one of the nation's leading business economists. His firm, ESC Company, combines economic analysis, business development, and communications skills to solve a wide range of business problems. ESC's diverse clientele have included leading firms in the financial, accounting, pharmaceutical, automotive, and other industries, and such diverse organizations as the Pew Center for Global Climate Change and the Major League Baseball Players Association. He also recently served as Executive Director of the CSIS Commission on Public Infrastructure under co-chairmen Felix Rohatyn and Warren Rudman; a bipartisan bill to enact their recommendations was introduced in the 110th Congress. >Dr. Ehrlich served in the Clinton Administration as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, the principal economic policy official for Commerce Secretaries Brown and Kantor and chief executive of the nation's statistical system. As such, he led the first comprehensive strategic review of the nation's economic statistics in four decades, leading to a major modernization of featured measures of the economy. He supervised the redesign of the 2000 decennial census. He co-chaired the White House working group on the restructuring of the U.S. economy in the face of information technology, was a leader in the U.S.'s planning effort of the two G-7 AJobs Summits, and oversaw the Administration's economic analysis of global climate change. >Prior to his service as Under Secretary, Dr. Ehrlich was Vice-President for Economic and Financial Planning, and for Strategic Planning, of Unisys Corporation, from 1988 to 1993. As such, he had responsibilities concerning corporate development and finance, formulating business strategy, and economic forecasting. He reported directly to two chairmen of the company. He has also been the Senior Vice-President and research director of the business-based think tank, the Committee for Economic Development. >Dr. Ehrlich earlier served as Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office, where he directed the CBO program in trade and technology, infrastructure and space transportation, energy and the environment, and agriculture. He joined CBO in 1977, after having served as a Legislative Aide to Congressman John Conyers, Jr., and having briefly taught economics at the university level. >Dr. Ehrlich is the author of two critically-acclaimed novels: Big Government (1998), and Grant Speaks (2000), both by Warner Books. He was, for eight years, a regular economics commentator on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, and his writings have appeared in The Financial Times, Investors Business Daily, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, The International Economy, and other publications. >Dr. Ehrlich was born in New York City in 1950 and is a product of its public schools. He received a B.A. in 1971 from S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook and a Ph.D. in economics in 1975 from the University of Michigan. He lives with his family in Bethesda, Maryland, where he has coached little league, acted in children's theater, been wardrobe master for the high school chorus, and waits for the Washington Nationals to win the World Series. Bio from [website](http://www.evehrlich.net/about-ev-ehrlich/)"
},
{
"docid": "179466",
"title": "",
"text": "Summarized article: Electronics manufacturer Foxconn announced that an internal investigation at its factory in Yantai, China, found underage interns between ages 14 and 16. China's minimum legal working age is 16. Foxconn has an internship program that has vocational students work for 3 to 6 months in its factories to gain industry experience. About 2.7% of the company's workforce are interns. The company said those identified as underage have been sent back to their schools but have not said how many were found. Foxconn's announcement came shortly after labor rights group China Labor Watch released its findings that underage interns were found at the Yantai factory. Recently, Foxconn faced a complaint that interns were being forced to work in its factories, however, the company cited the Fair Labor Association's report in saying there was no evidence of such claims. In August, the Fair Labor Association, hired by Apple to audit labor conditions at Foxconn, said Foxconn has made a majority of the recommended improvements but must address remaining concerns by next year. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit"
},
{
"docid": "34609",
"title": "",
"text": "Some answers already informed about denomination. There are currencies, doing the cut off of two digits, for example the french franc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc#New_franc When you look to old french movies, they often talked about 'old franc' when talking about values (at least in French original, I don't know what happens in English translations)."
},
{
"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": "86771",
"title": "",
"text": "I think a shirt with French cuffs that require cufflinks is a good way to show any conservative workplace that you know how they roll. However if you are just an intern it might make you look very stuffy. I say do it if you are over 20. And practice tying your tie so the taper to the point starts at the belt buckle. You don't want to see the top shirt button, and you don't want to see any shirt below the tie. Last thing, leave the bottom button of the suit unbuttoned at all times. So if it is a three button suit, never ever touch button three. Also, you may unbutton your suit when you sit down, rebutton it up when you stand up. If you sit down with buttons done up sometimes it scrunches up a bit around the shoulders."
},
{
"docid": "80066",
"title": "",
"text": "The duties are: Responsible for verifying accuracy and correctness of figures, calculations and postings of all recorded transactions against original documents. Receives any Casino-related Transaction Reports with associated supporting documents for Title 31 Auditor. Reconciles reports to supporting documents in accordance with established internal gaming controls, as outlined on daily/weekly/monthly/annual checklists. Issues Exception Reports for any instances of non-compliance with established internal controls. Coordinates with the lead audit clerk or Accounting Supervisor concerning revenue discrepancies and proposed adjustments to be made to correct the same. Prepares daily recurring journal entries to record daily activity, as appropriate. Compiles all reports pertaining to the daily audit operations and distributes/saves in accordance with the distribution list/policy. Maintains complete audit records in an organized manner for proper record retention as per company policy. Files all documents and computer reports for future reference. Other related duties as assigned. I want to work in corporate finance, forecasting and budgeting."
},
{
"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": "304905",
"title": "",
"text": "One of your credit reports said this was negatively impacting your credit. You are entitled to a free copy of your credit report once per year from each of the three major credit reporting companies in the U.S. (TRW, Equifax and one other). It is a good idea to check on these anyway, if you have credit accounts. Get copies from the other two credit reporting companies. See if they also say that your credit is negatively impacted by so many loans, even though the balances are small. If all three credit reporting companies are in consensus about negative effecting your credit, then it is true. If that IS the case, check with your subsidized loan lender about consolidation. If the unsubsidized loans are from the same lender, ask them too. If they're from different lenders, you might want to ask at your bank about getting a debt consolidation loan. You might be able to save money by refinancing (consolidating) the unsubsidized student loans as one loan, maybe even ALL the loans as one loan, particularly if you bank at a credit union."
},
{
"docid": "528186",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your credit-score is concerned with your current credit accounts (credit-cards, HELOC, loans, mortgage, et cetera) - your Current/Checking bank account is not a credit account so it is not reported to the credit agencies. Granted, being overdrawn is effectively the same as having a very expensive loan from the bank- however banks do not routinely report these to the credit-agencies - and of course, if you fail to pay overdraft fees in a timely manner then your bank will take it to collections or possibly even get a judgement against you, and that will be reported in your credit report (under the \"\"Derogatory remarks\"\" section). I cannot find any sources as to whether repeated but always-paid overdrafts will be reported - but certainly your bank isn't complaining because they'll be making lots of money from you. (Via https://www.thebalance.com/will-a-bank-overdraft-hurt-my-credit-score-960554).\""
},
{
"docid": "116276",
"title": "",
"text": "no that's not what i'm saying. I've been making the reports, running the stress tests and Movar for the past 2 risk managers. I have a BS in Economics and Business Administration so i'm not really a hard core finance guy. like our first RM was one of the people in the 70s that basically created futures for oil. our last guy was a french dude from EDF. I just feel that i lack their experience and i really don't wanna fuck up so im asking people with more experience perhaps to point the way for me. books, programs, classes etc. Also i think you mistaken my comment about having no idea was on the Crystal Ball sofware. Im mainly a VBA and SQL guy, but i guess to run monte carlo sims i need to learn crystal ball"
},
{
"docid": "283490",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are \"\"real\"\" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become \"\"real\"\") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason.\""
},
{
"docid": "304179",
"title": "",
"text": "You signed a contract to pay the loan. You owe the money. Stories of people being arrested over defaulted student loans are usually based in contempt of court warrants when the person failed to appear in court when the collection agency filed suit against them. Explore student loan forgiveness program. Research collections and bankruptcy and how to deal with collection agencies. There are pitfalls in communicating with them which restart the clock on bad debt aging off the credit report, and which can be used to say that you agreed to pay a debt. For instance, if you make any sort of payment on any debt, a case can be made that you have assumed the debt. Once you are aware of the pitfalls, contact the collection agency (in writing) and dispute the debt. Force them to prove that it is your debt. Force them to prove that they have the right to collect it. Force them to prove the amount. Dispute the fairness of the amount. Doubling your principal in 6 years is a bit flagrant. So, work with the collectors, establish that the debt is valid and negotiate a settlement. Or let it stay in default. Your credit report in the US is shot. It will be a long time before the default ages off your report. This is important if you try to open a bank account, rent an apartment, or get a job in the US. These activities do not always require a credit report, but they often do. You will not be able to borrow money or establish a credit card in the US. Here's a decent informational site regarding what they can do to collect the loan. Pay special attention to Administrative Wage Garnishment. They can likely hit you with that one. You might be unreachable for a court summons, but AWG only requires that the collectors be able to confirm that you work for a company that is subject to US laws. Update: I am informed that federally funded student loans are not available to international students. AWG is only possible for debts to the federal government. Private companies must go through the courts to force settlement of debt. OP is safe from AWG."
},
{
"docid": "26182",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I'm not a CPA or international tax accountant; my entire understanding of the French tax system is entirely from what I've read in places like the WSJ, Barrons, WaPo, etc. However, ***my understanding*** is that French tax law works something like this. Let's say France has a tax rate of 35%. First, it must be assessed where the controlling entity is. In this case, if the majority of production and labor, or if the corporation is primarily based in France, it would proceed as follows. Taxes are initially paid based on transfer pricing to the original local entity (this avoids \"\"double taxation\"\"). So in the example above, you would pay 10% to India on the $3,000,000 in profits ($300,000). You would then reduce the 35% French tax rate by the 10% already paid. This means you would pay an additional 25% to France ($750,000). The premise is that you have an effective \"\"minimum\"\" tax threshold for being in France. In the case above, companies like GE would have to pay the difference (this doesn't get into tax breaks/shelters on previously recorded losses, etc.). Again, ***I AM NOT SURE ON THIS***. This is my basic understanding and am by no means a tax accountant/lawyer/etc. From what I understand; however, this hasn't necessarily been a good thing for France either (California is likely a similar case study with the Unitary return requirement). The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes... IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear). What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!\""
},
{
"docid": "66963",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming you are asking about a credit score in the United States, the following applies. To find out your FICO score, navigate to AnnualCreditReport, the official site to help consumers receive their credit report from each of the three organizations providing these scores - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. You are - in many states - entitled to a free copy of your credit report from each of these organizations annually. This copy of your credit report will not contain your credit score from that organization. It will, however, contain information that goes into your credit score - the lines of credits on file, any delinquencies reported, etc. If you decide you would like to pay for your credit score from each bureau, you will have the option to receive this information while getting your credit report, but you will have to pay a nominal fee for it. Remember that each of the 3 bureaus gives you a different score. Averaging your 3 scores should give you a good idea of your FICO score. Note that your report is far more important than your score - once you know that, you know if you're in a good place or not. These other questions are so close that they might even be considered duplicates, and provide other suggestions for how to check your score. As a warning, don't trust the many ads out there saying you can get your score for free. Only AnnualCreditReport is considered a safe place for entering the very personal information required to get a score. The FTC backs this up."
}
] |
5347 | car loan life insurance | [
{
"docid": "352930",
"title": "",
"text": "This greatly depends on the local laws and the insurance contract terms. If I remember correctly, my own life insurance policy does also have special terms in case I die within a year of applying, so it doesn't sound totally bogus. For car loan insurance, the amount of coverage and premiums were probably low enough for the insurer not to want to spend the money upfront on the thorough investigation, but they probably do have a clause that covers them in case the insured passes away unreasonably quickly (unreasonably for a healthy person of the given age, that is)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "34043",
"title": "",
"text": "Very generally speaking if you have a loan, in which something is used as collateral, the leader will likely require you to insure that collateral. In your case that would be a car. Yes certainly a lender will require you to insure the vehicle that they finance (Toyota or otherwise). Of course, if you purchase a vehicle for cash (which is advisable anyway), then the insurance option is somewhat yours. Some states may require that a certain amount of coverage is carried on a registered vehicle. However, you may be able to drop the collision, rental car, and other options from your policy saving you some money. So you buy a new car for cash ($25K or so) and store the thing. What happens if the car suffers damage during storage? Are you willing to save a few dollars to have the loss of an asset? You will have to insure the thing in some way and I bet if you buy the proper policy the amount save will be very minimal. Sure you could drop the road side assistance, rental car, and some other options, during your storage time but that probably will not amount to a lot of money."
},
{
"docid": "67045",
"title": "",
"text": "So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation."
},
{
"docid": "519692",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up \"\"comprehensive\"\" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance. People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen.\""
},
{
"docid": "386996",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a colleague who always leases cars first. He's very well off, has piles of money in savings, owns a home, and the cherry on top, he could just write a check for the car.... He sees the lease as an insurance policy on the first couple of years of the car's life. If it gets in an accident or he finds something about it he doesn't like, he can give it back to the dealer at the end of the term with no hassle and move on to the next car. Some people value the fact that a lease is a rental. If you're leasing a luxury car or something you couldn't otherwise afford, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn this in to a good idea. Separately, you should never make a down payment on a lease. If the car is totaled early on, you will not recoupe the money you put down. The issue here is that while the numbers all work out the same between a lease and a purchase your situation is different. If the leased car is totaled, the bank gets its money back from an insurer. If that payment doesn't cover the value of the car, the GAP insurance will cover it. In either situation, if there's an excess remaining it will be returned to you. The issue is the excess may not fully replace your down payment. If you then went to lease another car you would need to come up with that down payment again because you couldn't just simply choose to lease a used car; like you could in the case of a purchase. Additionally, GAP is generally included in a lease whether you want it or not. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make financial sense to mitigate the value of the GAP coverage once you've decided to live in a lease situation."
},
{
"docid": "376403",
"title": "",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin."
},
{
"docid": "271076",
"title": "",
"text": "Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value. They are a disposable item that gets used up. The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.* That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car. Do not get a loan. Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car. That is a lot of money for a long range goal. If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want. You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose. However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late. You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving. If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal. If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value. You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs."
},
{
"docid": "464166",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\""
},
{
"docid": "125986",
"title": "",
"text": "Cash price is $22,500. Financed, it's the same thing (0% interest) but you pay a $1500 fee. 1500/22500 = 6.6%. Basically the APR for your loan is 1.1% per year but you are paying it all upfront. Opportunity cost: If you take the $22,500 you plan to pay for the car and invested it, could you earn more than the $1500 interest on the car loan? According to google, as of today you can get 1 year CD @ 1.25% so yes. It's likely that interest rates will be going up in medium term so you can potentially earn even more. Insurance cost: If you finance you'll have to get comprehensive insurance which could be costly. However, if you are planning to get it anyway (it's a brand new car after all), that's a wash. Which brings me to my main point: Why do you have $90k in a savings account? Even if you are planning to buy a house you should have that money invested in liquid assets earning you interest. Conclusion: Take the cheap money while it's available. You never know when interest rates will go up again."
},
{
"docid": "205817",
"title": "",
"text": "Welcome to Money.SE. It appears there's public transportation to get you to work? And the area by your house is walkable? i.e. you and your wife can get groceries and other needs by walking. If it will take 5 years to pay the loans even without a car, how long if you get one? Will you even be able to afford the payments? There's not enough detail here except to say that all purchases aside from true needs have a cost/reward to consider. Whatever the car's total cost is, will it add that much pleasure to your life? People in cities with great transportation save quite a bit on the expenses a car brings. Personal anecdote - Mom lives in a city. She never drives out of the city. Ever. Between insurance, maintenance, and gas, even with low miles, she spends $3000/yr. Once per week, she drives 1500 ft (.3mi) each way to the grocery store. Once every month or 2 to a mall 6 miles away. She can walk and groceries delivered for free. In the end, she spends $250/mo for the feeling of freedom. I get that. When I am 70+, as she is, I will gladly pay car service the $20 to drive me around. You are young, and need to sit with your partner (your wife is your partner in the business of running the family finances, or so I hope) and decide if the benefit is worth the cost. How does she take the kids to a doctor? How do you go out to dinner?"
},
{
"docid": "366685",
"title": "",
"text": "Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120. You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans. This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth. Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes. Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too. Whole life/universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time. An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York. We're in our early 30's. I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo. My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65. If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage."
},
{
"docid": "244986",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I support the strategy to buy a less expensive car at the outset and then save for that more expensive car. You mentioned that you would be able to save $9000 by the time you had to start making payments. That sounds like a great budget for car shopping. For $9k you can get a dependable used car. If you find the right high-yield savings account you can get around 2% on your $500/month direct deposit. That's a difference of about 5% when you add in the 2.9% interest that you would have been paying on the loan. (You can't find such a low risk investment that would yield 5% these days.) Also, at that rate (2%) you would have $27k saved up in less than 52 months, or over $31k in 60 months. Then you could buy a BMW with cash! And I'm sure they would give you a cash discount. Alternatively you could be just finishing paying off the loan and might already be looking at the next car you'll take a loan out for. The point is not that you have to completely deprive yourself for the rest of your life. But by not taking out a loan you were certainly come out ahead in 5-10 years time. Also, one common mistake that new grads make is thinking that they are rich right out of college. Yes, you definitely have a nice salary and \"\"could afford it\"\" by most people's standards. I have a coworker that graduated and started work a year ago. He first bought a brand new Subaru. Why Subaru I do not know, but that is what he thought he wanted. After driving the car for a few months he decided for a few reasons that it was not what he wanted. So he sold the car (for a loss) and bought a slightly used Nissan Z. He has since decided that he needs a more practical car for day to day driving to minimize the abuse that his Z takes. So he has bought another car. This time a low budget Honda. Had he started with a low budget car he could be driving the same car to work right now, but have a good chunk of savings for a new car instead of a loan and a car that he drives only occasionally.\""
},
{
"docid": "525557",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off your car loan. Here is why: As you mentioned, the interest on your home mortgage is tax deductible. This may not completely offset the difference in interest between your two loans, but it makes them much closer. Once your car debt is gone, you have eliminated a payment from your life. Now, here's the trick: take the money that you had been paying on your car debt, and set it aside for your next car. When the time comes to replace your car, you'll be able to pay cash for your car, which has several advantages."
},
{
"docid": "321490",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)"
},
{
"docid": "28230",
"title": "",
"text": "I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "26307",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics: Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the \"\"bread-winner\"\" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders.\""
},
{
"docid": "487010",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't be afraid to shop around. Every couple of years when it's time to renew my auto insurance I call a couple of places to see if I can get a better deal. It's especially important to do this as you get older (because your rates go down assuming you keep a clean driving record). Also as your life changes, e.g. if you get married, move, buy a home, get a new car, etc. At 30 my rates dropped a lot. When I bought a home, I qualified for a discount by combining my home and auto insurance through the same carrier. My suggestion would be to call 3 insurance companies for quotes, all on the same day. You'll need to be able to identify the car you'll be insuring for the most accurate quote. Do you belong to any organizations that offer insurance discounts? (E.g. my college alumni association had a program with one of the larger carriers that had the best rates on auto+home that I could find.)"
},
{
"docid": "493525",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The editorial highlights some reasonable reforms-- consistent and transparent pricing--- and then seemingly takes a left turn. This concept or \"\"cutting out the middle man\"\" is a fantasy born of a time when local doctors provided affordable but limited care to a limited population. It's been a hollow talking point perpetuated by industry lobby in response to single-payer proposals. Keeping health care between patient and doctor doesn't address the key reasons why health insurance exists in the first place. The author suggests government-funded escrow accounts for those who can't afford the cost of healthcare. What about those just above the needs-tested cutoff? It seems that this approach disregards and therefore punishes the middle class. Must those with chronic illness become indigent before the government will assist in their care? The point of insurance is that when you get sick, you aren't left spending your life savings on medical care. Level and transparent pricing doesn't change the fact that certain treatments are still going to be expensive. The auto insurance comparison always frustrates me because people are not cars. If your car is breaking down every 30 miles, you can take out a loan and get a new car. A new body, not so much. Furthermore, every auto insurance claim raises your premium. All of this amounts to a tax on sick people. Single payer or even Medicaid for all (who want it) means the government has enormous pool of patients (or consumers if you wish) with which to negotiate pricing. Do you really think St. XYZ Hospital is going to cut you, an individual, a deal for no reason? Where is the leverage? Particularly in the case of emergencies? It isn't perfect, but politicizing and misconstruing the tragic case of a brain-dead infant does not strengthen your argument. Charlie Gard's case was not a matter of death panels; it was a matter of heartbroken parents in denial that their children was not going to get better. It's indeed an ethical quandary and no doubt a tragedy, but the hopelessness of the situation was not dictated by a heartless government but by health care professionals. This is much more than I wished to say initially, but I am tired of seeing simplified fantasy being sold as panacea for what is an extremely complicated subject. Also, I'm not a public policy scholar, but I think I've done a better job than the author.\""
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "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).\""
}
] |
5356 | Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis? | [
{
"docid": "279785",
"title": "",
"text": "Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "426324",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "538727",
"title": "",
"text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well."
},
{
"docid": "293048",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\""
},
{
"docid": "267789",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That article is over a year old and at the tail end of the largest recession in 50 years. It is based on Census data, but since they don't say which data it is not clear where they got their information. Do you have anything from this past moth or so? Looking at the Census website, [here is the Census page with data](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/), and if you open the top link titled \"\"Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent •All Races [XLS - 45k]\"\" you'll see that there is a slight blip in income level but as of 2010 almost every quintile is wthin $1000/yr of an all time high. Feel free to browse and analyze their datasets, but it does not look bad. So let's find more recent data: BLS tracks such items, such as the [National Compensation Survey](http://www.bls.gov/ncs/tables.htm) , the [Labor Force Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm) and the [CUrrent Population Survey](http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#weekearn), among others. I am too tired to dig through this. I already posted the Census data, and it is old and shows signs on increase, and plenty from BLS that I have dug up in other posts shows that real income most definitley has not declined for *decades*. At worst people have incomes similar to 2005, and it seems most quintiles are back to an all time high for real compensation.\""
},
{
"docid": "148019",
"title": "",
"text": "Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis."
},
{
"docid": "421987",
"title": "",
"text": "Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks."
},
{
"docid": "168347",
"title": "",
"text": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate."
},
{
"docid": "501952",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs: 1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC)"
},
{
"docid": "399043",
"title": "",
"text": "Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering."
},
{
"docid": "442727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\""
},
{
"docid": "589088",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "480664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are Cyber Security and Reporting Standards which Financial Service Provider (Banks and Financial services where customers deposit and/or transact fiat currency) You can find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia under Cyber security standards Depending on the geographic location there might be local Govt requirements such as reporting issues, data security etc. Concerning point 1. We have to differ between a fraudulent customer and an attacker on the banks infrastructure. Fraudulent customers / customers that have been compromised by third parties are identified with but not limited to credit scores and merchant databases or data from firms specialized in \"\"Fraud Prevention\"\". Attackers (Criminals that intend to steal, manipulate or spy on data) are identified/prevented/recorded by but not limited to IDS solutions and attacker databases. For firms that get compensation by insurances the most important thing is the compilant with law and have records of everything, they rather focus on recording data to backtrack attackers than preventing attacks. Concerning point 2. For you as customer the local law and deposit insurance are the most important things. Banks are insured and usually compensate customers on money theft. The authentication and PIN / TAN methods are most crucial but standard - these authentication methods consist of one password and one offline part such as a TAN from a paperletter or a RSA generator or card reader. WRAPUP: Financial institutions have to comply with local law and meet international standards. Banks use highly advanced Intrusion detection and fraud prevention which logically must be based on databases. For the average joe customer there is seldom high risk to lose deposits even if the attackers gains full access to the bank account but this depends a lot on the country you reside in. Concerning targeted attacks:\""
},
{
"docid": "248021",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "18689",
"title": "",
"text": "Yahoo Finance provides the proper closing price. HP's historical data around the split date can be found here. The open, high and low of the day are wrong prior the split, but the closing price is right and for HP, it was $26.96 USD. The next day the closing price was $13.83 USD."
},
{
"docid": "343042",
"title": "",
"text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore."
},
{
"docid": "495600",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\""
},
{
"docid": "396657",
"title": "",
"text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing."
},
{
"docid": "100485",
"title": "",
"text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits."
},
{
"docid": "529877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For those on a budget, check if your local library has access to / or a copy of the \"\"Standard & Poor's Daily Stock Price Record\"\". Access to that or a similar service may be available as part of your library patronage. If not available it may be available at your metropolitan central library. Comprehensive stock pricing data which provides adjustments for splits, mergers, capital distributions and other relevant events is still a premium product. External link to New York Public Library blog post on subject: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2012/04/09/finding-historical-stock-prices\""
}
] |
5356 | Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis? | [
{
"docid": "71553",
"title": "",
"text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "41023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\""
},
{
"docid": "501952",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs: 1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC)"
},
{
"docid": "538727",
"title": "",
"text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well."
},
{
"docid": "367391",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\""
},
{
"docid": "148019",
"title": "",
"text": "Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis."
},
{
"docid": "442727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\""
},
{
"docid": "495600",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\""
},
{
"docid": "391171",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\""
},
{
"docid": "248021",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "226749",
"title": "",
"text": "Robert Shiller published US Stock Market data from 1871. Ken French also has historical data on his website. Damodaran has a bunch of historical data, here is some historical S&P data."
},
{
"docid": "463851",
"title": "",
"text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data"
},
{
"docid": "48946",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "370281",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\""
},
{
"docid": "391605",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\""
},
{
"docid": "100485",
"title": "",
"text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits."
},
{
"docid": "596821",
"title": "",
"text": "looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary. When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns. A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily. The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance. If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt. But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100. At best it might be an interesting learning experience."
},
{
"docid": "180644",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again."
},
{
"docid": "532178",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's almost like why don't you wake up in the morning feeling exactly like you slept the earlier night? yeah, once in a while that'll happen, but it's not designed to be that way. Stuff happens. The close of the stock is what happened at 4 PM (for US stocks). The \"\"open\"\" is simply the first price ever, or an open price auction like NimChimpsky said. Most things that trade have an open/close cycle, even what seemingly trades all the time (some markets trade 23 hours). Forex trades in different exchanges which have overlapping timing but each market will have an open, high, low and close for each day - for what is the same underlying currency. Also, it's not exactly true that close<>open. Take the GS chart, Oct 1 2010 and Oct 4 2010 (there was a weekend in between). The Oct 1 close was the same as the Oct 4 open. Note that Oct 4 was a down day so it's in red - the open is the upper end of the body (not including the wick), and Oct 1 was an up day so its close was the upper end too. (Candles are drawn so that the open ends of the wicks are the High and Low of the period respectively, and the lower end of the body is the open if it was an up-day, meaning the stock closed higher than it opened, and the body in coloured green below. If the stock went down that day from the open, the body's in red and the lower end is the close. Vice-versa for the other end) The way to get to this: Go to yahoo finance, choose a stock, go to historical prices, click download data (you should have about 10 years of data), paste into excel, insert a formula to check if prev day's close = current day's open, and I'm sure you'll see at least one instance per stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "267789",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That article is over a year old and at the tail end of the largest recession in 50 years. It is based on Census data, but since they don't say which data it is not clear where they got their information. Do you have anything from this past moth or so? Looking at the Census website, [here is the Census page with data](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/), and if you open the top link titled \"\"Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent •All Races [XLS - 45k]\"\" you'll see that there is a slight blip in income level but as of 2010 almost every quintile is wthin $1000/yr of an all time high. Feel free to browse and analyze their datasets, but it does not look bad. So let's find more recent data: BLS tracks such items, such as the [National Compensation Survey](http://www.bls.gov/ncs/tables.htm) , the [Labor Force Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm) and the [CUrrent Population Survey](http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#weekearn), among others. I am too tired to dig through this. I already posted the Census data, and it is old and shows signs on increase, and plenty from BLS that I have dug up in other posts shows that real income most definitley has not declined for *decades*. At worst people have incomes similar to 2005, and it seems most quintiles are back to an all time high for real compensation.\""
}
] |
5356 | Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis? | [
{
"docid": "381362",
"title": "",
"text": "I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "463851",
"title": "",
"text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data"
},
{
"docid": "391605",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\""
},
{
"docid": "218326",
"title": "",
"text": "The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money. The word for making money is profit, not revenue. Profit equals revenue minus costs. An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits. For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue. This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks. If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you. In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500. Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results. Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results. Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24. You might get a return some day. Or you might waste your money. Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money. That said, it's not a lot of money to waste. So it won't hurt you that much. The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless."
},
{
"docid": "357232",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy."
},
{
"docid": "21070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For starters, the risk-free rate has nothing to do with stocks. It would be independent of anything. It pays out the same return in all states of nature. The definition of a risk-free asset is that regardless of how the universe turns out, including a meteor striking the Earth killing everyone but the recipient, then the payout would happen exactly as planned. One could imagine a computer still being on, connected to a power supply and printing a check. Most people use the 90-day t-bill as the risk-free rate. A beta greater than one implies it is more volatile than the market, not that it moves more perfectly. The CAPM should not be used for this. Cryptocurrencies should not be used with this model because they have valuation dynamics related to the new issue of coins. In other words, they have non-market price movements as well as market price movements. In general, you should not use the CAPM because it doesn't work empirically. It is famous, but it is also wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is not supported by the data is a bad idea. My strong recommendation is that you read \"\"The Intelligent Investor,\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It was last published in 1972, and it is still being printed. I believe Warren Buffett wrote the current forward for it. Always go where the data supports you and never anywhere else, no matter how elegant. Finally, unless you are doing this like a trip to Vegas, for fun and willing to take the losses, I would avoid cryptocurrencies because you don't know what you are doing yet. It is obvious from the posting. I have multiple decades working in every type of financial institution and at every level, bottom to top. I also have a doctorate, and I am an incredible researcher. I am professionally qualified in three different disciplines. If you want to learn how to do this, start with the \"\"Intelligent Investor.\"\" Get a basic book on accounting and learn basic accounting. Pick up economics textbooks at least through \"\"Intermediate\"\" for both microeconomics and macroeconomics. Get William Bolstad's book \"\"Introduction to Bayesian Statistics.\"\" You will need them for reasons that go very far beyond this post. Trust me; you want to master that book. Find a statistician and ask them to teach it to you as a special topics course. It will help you as both either a Marine officer or a Naval officer. Then after that pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis.\"\" Either the 1943 copy (yes it is in print) by Benjamin Graham if you feel good about accounting, or the 1987 copy by Cottle under the Graham/Dodd imprimatur. Then, if you are still interested in cryptocurrencies and they will be blasé by then, then pick up an economics textbook on money. If I were you, I would learn about Yap money, commodity money, and prison money first, then you might understand why a cryptocurrency may not be an investment for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "421987",
"title": "",
"text": "Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks."
},
{
"docid": "292480",
"title": "",
"text": "While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else."
},
{
"docid": "173088",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\""
},
{
"docid": "343619",
"title": "",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, AULT (Ault Inc) began as an OTC stock in the 1980s prior it having an official NASDAQ listing. It was delisted on 27 Jan 2006. Its final traded price was $2.94. It was taken over at a price of $2.90 per share by SL Industries. Source: Symbol AULT-200601 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical price data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data."
},
{
"docid": "492022",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're taking a Terminal DCF, you shouldn't be using 1-year risk free rates, so the 2.77% is probably much more accurate. That being said, we're in a historically low-rate environment, so even the 2.77% is probably a bit low. Here's another data point that puts the WACC at 8%: [http://www.wikiwealth.com/wacc-analysis:mcd](http://www.wikiwealth.com/wacc-analysis:mcd)"
},
{
"docid": "282373",
"title": "",
"text": "I have never seen a backtest showing that prices tended to be attracted by / to revert around Fibonacci levels. The fact that many people use them doesn't mean that they can be turned into a profitable system... I have on the other hand seen many backtests showing that they don't do anything, such as the one described in this article: At least in this sample of market data, using this particularly specification for swings, we find no evidence that Fibonacci ratios are significant in the market. Perhaps I have missed something significant, or perhaps I am merely completely wrong in my analysis, but one thing should be clear—the burden of proof should lie on the people offering arcane and complex methodologies, when simpler methods work just as well or better in the marketplace. If Fibonacci ratios are the key to the markets, where are the quantitative tests? Where’s the proof?"
},
{
"docid": "85484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\""
},
{
"docid": "367391",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\""
},
{
"docid": "293048",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\""
},
{
"docid": "399043",
"title": "",
"text": "Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering."
},
{
"docid": "41023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\""
},
{
"docid": "589088",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "100485",
"title": "",
"text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits."
},
{
"docid": "224695",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\""
}
] |
5356 | Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis? | [
{
"docid": "312405",
"title": "",
"text": "I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "560108",
"title": "",
"text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart."
},
{
"docid": "463851",
"title": "",
"text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data"
},
{
"docid": "532178",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's almost like why don't you wake up in the morning feeling exactly like you slept the earlier night? yeah, once in a while that'll happen, but it's not designed to be that way. Stuff happens. The close of the stock is what happened at 4 PM (for US stocks). The \"\"open\"\" is simply the first price ever, or an open price auction like NimChimpsky said. Most things that trade have an open/close cycle, even what seemingly trades all the time (some markets trade 23 hours). Forex trades in different exchanges which have overlapping timing but each market will have an open, high, low and close for each day - for what is the same underlying currency. Also, it's not exactly true that close<>open. Take the GS chart, Oct 1 2010 and Oct 4 2010 (there was a weekend in between). The Oct 1 close was the same as the Oct 4 open. Note that Oct 4 was a down day so it's in red - the open is the upper end of the body (not including the wick), and Oct 1 was an up day so its close was the upper end too. (Candles are drawn so that the open ends of the wicks are the High and Low of the period respectively, and the lower end of the body is the open if it was an up-day, meaning the stock closed higher than it opened, and the body in coloured green below. If the stock went down that day from the open, the body's in red and the lower end is the close. Vice-versa for the other end) The way to get to this: Go to yahoo finance, choose a stock, go to historical prices, click download data (you should have about 10 years of data), paste into excel, insert a formula to check if prev day's close = current day's open, and I'm sure you'll see at least one instance per stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "418029",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Really arbitrage means that, currency risk aside, it shouldn't matter which exchange you buy on in price terms alone. Arbitrage will always make sure that the prices are equivalent otherwise high frequency traders can make free money off the difference. In practical terms liquidity and brokerage costs usually make trading on the \"\"home\"\" exchange more worthwhile as any limit orders etc will be filled at a better price as you will more easily find a counterparty to your trade. Obviously that will only be an issue where your quantity is significant enough to move the market on a given exchange. The volume needed to move a market is dependent upon the liquidity of the particular stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "399043",
"title": "",
"text": "Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering."
},
{
"docid": "501952",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs: 1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC)"
},
{
"docid": "168347",
"title": "",
"text": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate."
},
{
"docid": "41023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\""
},
{
"docid": "507835",
"title": "",
"text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service."
},
{
"docid": "66834",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\""
},
{
"docid": "289466",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I expect that data may be copyright. Data that's published (e.g. on a newsfeed or web site) is subject to terms of use. Standard & Poor's web site says, about the Shiller indexes, Who do I contact at S&P to license my use of these indices? Questions regarding licensing the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices can be addressed to: Bo Chung Managing Director [email protected], +1.212.438.3519 As for 'recording' the information yourself, that may depend on how and where (e.g. from what source) you're recording it. If for example you tried to record prices from the Canadian MLS (Realtor's) network, they too have their own terms of use on the data they publish. Copyright laws vary from country to country (and terms of use certainly vary): for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural which is case law about copyrighting a phone directory in the USA, and contrast that with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right which is European legislation. So who owns data if it is determined by free market? I guess that \"\"determined by free market\"\" means that buyers and sellers are publishing their offers-to-buy and their offers-to-sell, and I guess that the publisher (e.g. the stock exchange) has 'terms of use' about the data (the offers) that they're publishing.\""
},
{
"docid": "110138",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Find a stock screener that has data for the BSE and NSE. You may be able to look directly at volatility but a good stock screener will have the technical analysis indicator called \"\"average true range\"\", ATR for short. This will let you see the average range of price moves over several days.\""
},
{
"docid": "85484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\""
},
{
"docid": "343594",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles. That's up to the editor. So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds. The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the \"\"shocking\"\" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF. Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes. They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day. If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time. (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.) It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that. Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume.\""
},
{
"docid": "100485",
"title": "",
"text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits."
},
{
"docid": "529877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For those on a budget, check if your local library has access to / or a copy of the \"\"Standard & Poor's Daily Stock Price Record\"\". Access to that or a similar service may be available as part of your library patronage. If not available it may be available at your metropolitan central library. Comprehensive stock pricing data which provides adjustments for splits, mergers, capital distributions and other relevant events is still a premium product. External link to New York Public Library blog post on subject: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2012/04/09/finding-historical-stock-prices\""
},
{
"docid": "248021",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "538727",
"title": "",
"text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow & discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani & Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits & credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration & convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well."
},
{
"docid": "577585",
"title": "",
"text": "Pivots Points are significant levels technical analysts can use to determine directional movement, support and resistance. Pivot Points use the prior period's high, low and close to formulate future support and resistance. In this regard, Pivot Points are predictive or leading indicators. There are at least five different versions of Pivot Points. I will focus on Standard Pivot Points here as they are the simplest. If you are looking to trade off daily charts you would work out your Pivot Points from the prior month's data. For example, Pivot Points for first trading day of February would be based on the high, low and close for January. They remain the same for the entire month of February. New Pivot Points would then be calculated on the first trading day of March using the high, low and close for February. To work out the Standard Pivot Points you use the High, Low and Close from the previous period (i.e. for daily charts it would be from the previous month) in the following formulas: You will now have 5 horizontal lines: P, R1, R2, S1 and S2 which will set the general tone for price action over the next month. A move above the Pivot Point P suggests strength with a target to the first resistance R1. A break above first resistance shows even more strength with a target to the second resistance level R2. The converse is true on the downside. A move below the Pivot Point P suggests weakness with a target to the first support level S1. A break below the first support level shows even more weakness with a target to the second support level S2. The second resistance and support levels (R2 & S2) can also be used to identify potentially overbought and oversold situations. A move above the second resistance level R2 would show strength, but it would also indicate an overbought situation that could give way to a pullback. Similarly, a move below the second support level S2 would show weakness, but would also suggest a short-term oversold condition that could give way to a bounce. This could be used together with a momentum indicator such as RSI or Stochastic to confirm overbought or oversold conditions. Pivot Points offer a methodology to determine price direction and then set support and resistance levels, however, it is important to confirm Pivot Point signals with other technical analysis indicators, such as candle stick reversal patterns, stochastic and general Support and Resistance Levels in the price action. These pivot points can be handy but I actually haven’t used them for trade setups and entries myself. I prefer to use candle sticks together with stochastic to determine potential turning points and then take out trades based on these. You can then use the Pivot Points Resistance and Support levels to help you estimate profit targets or areas to start becoming cautious and start tightening your stops. Say, for example, you have gone long from a signal you got a few days ago, you are now in profit and the price is now approaching R2 whilst the Stochastic is approaching overbought, you might want to start tightening your stop loss as you might expect some weakness in the price in the near future. If prices continue up you keep increasing your profits, if prices do reverse then you keep the majority of your existing profits. This would become part of your trade management. If you are after finding potential market turning points and take out trades based on these, then I would suggest using candlestick charting reversal patterns for your trade setups. The patterns I like to use most in my trading can be described as either the Hammer or One White Soldier for Bullish reversals and Shooting Star or One Black Crow for Bearish reversals. Below are diagrams of where to place your entries and exits on both Bullish and Bearish reversal patterns. Bullish Reversal Pattern So after some period of weakness in the price you would look for a bullish day where the price closes above the previous day’s high, you place your buy order here just before market close and place your initial stop just below the low of the day. You would apply this either for an uptrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the support line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the oversold and crossing back upwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the down days, and the market as a whole is moving up as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bullish move up at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves up you would move your stop loss to just below the low of each day. Alternative Bullish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop buy order to buy at the open of next trading day just above the high of the bullish green candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just below the low of the green bullish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bullish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap up at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps up then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. Bearish Reversal Pattern So after some short period of strength in the price you would look for a bearish day where the price closes below the previous day’s low, you place your sell short order here just before market close and place your initial stop just above the high of the day. You would apply this either for an downtrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the resistance line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the overbought and crossing back downwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the up days, and the market as a whole is moving down as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bearish move down at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves down you would move your stop loss to just above the high of each day. Alternative Bearish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop sell short order to sell at the open of next trading day just below the low of the bearish red candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just above the high of the red bearish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bearish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap down at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps down then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. You could also trade other candle stick patterns is similar ways. And with the long entries you can also use them to get into the market with longer term trend following strategies, you would usually just use a larger stop for longer term trading. To determine the size of your order you would use the price difference between your entry and your stop. You should not be risking more than 1% of your trading capital on any one trade. So if your trading capital is $20,000 your risk per trade should be $200. If you were looking to place your buy at 5.00 and had your initial stop at $4.60, you would divide $200 by $0.40 to get 500 stocks to buy. Using this form of money management you keep your losses down to a maximum of $200 (some trades may be a bit higher due to some slippage which you should allow for in your trading plan), which becomes your R-multiple. Your aim is to have your average win at 3R or higher (3 x your average loss), which will give you a positive expectancy even with a win ratio under 50%. Once you have written down your trading rules you can search stock charts for potential setups. When you find one you can backtest the chart for similar setup over the past few years. For each setup in the past jot down the prices you would have entered at, where you would have set your stop, work out your R, and go day by day, moving your stop as you go, and see where you would have been stopped out. Work out your profit or loss in terms of R for each setup and then add them up. If you get a positive R multiple, then this may be a good stock to trade on this setup. If you get a negative R multiple, then maybe give this stock a miss and look for the next setup. You can setup watch-lists of stocks that perform well for both long setups and short setups, and then trade these stocks when you get a new signal. It can take some time starting off, but once you have got your watch-lists for a particular setup, you just need to keep monitoring those stocks. You can create other watch-lists for other type of setups you have backtested as well."
}
] |
5356 | Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis? | [
{
"docid": "562259",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "475426",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\""
},
{
"docid": "279785",
"title": "",
"text": "Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table."
},
{
"docid": "48946",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "18689",
"title": "",
"text": "Yahoo Finance provides the proper closing price. HP's historical data around the split date can be found here. The open, high and low of the day are wrong prior the split, but the closing price is right and for HP, it was $26.96 USD. The next day the closing price was $13.83 USD."
},
{
"docid": "148019",
"title": "",
"text": "Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis."
},
{
"docid": "111281",
"title": "",
"text": "For press releases about economic data, the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release page is helpful. Depending on the series, you could also look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release page. For time series of both historical and present data, the St. Louis Federal Reserve maintains a database such data, including numerous measures of GDP, called FRED. They list nearly 15,000 series related to GDP alone. FRED is extremely useful because it allows you to make graphs that indicate areas of recession, like this: On the series' homepage, there's a bold link on the left side to download the data. If you simply need the most recent data, it's listed below the graph on that page. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis, you can use the Bureau of Economic Analysis as well, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, which are most of the numbers that feed into the calculation of GDP. FRED also archives some of these data. Both FRED and the BEA compile data on numerous other economic benchmarks as well. Other general sources for a wide range of announcements are the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal economic calendars. These provide the dates of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, crude inventories, etc. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. This is a great way to learn about various announcements and how they affect the markets; for example, the somewhat disappointing durable orders announcement recently pushed markets down a few points. For Europe, look at Eurostat. On the left side of the page, they list links to common data, including GDP. They list the latest releases on the home page that I previously linked to. For the sake of keeping this question short, I'm lumping the rest of the world into this paragraph. Data for many other countries is maintained by their governments or central banks in a similar fashion. The World Bank's databank also has relevant data like Gross National Income (GNI), which isn't identical to GDP, but it's another (less common) macroeconomic indicator. You can also look at the economic calendar on livecharts.co.uk or xe.com, which list events for the US, Europe, Australasia, and some Latin American countries. If you're only interested in the US, the Bloomberg or Yahoo calendars may have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but if you're interested in following how global markets like currency markets respond to new information, a global economic calendar is a must. Dailyfx.com also has a global economic calendar that, according to them, is specifically geared towards events that affect the forex market. As I said, governments and central banks compile a lot of this data, so to make searching easier, here are a few links to statistical agencies and central banks for major countries. I compiled this list a while ago on my personal machine, so although I think all the links are accurate, leave a comment if something isn't quite right. Statistics Australia / Brazil / Canada / Canada / China / Eurostat / France / Germany / IMF / Japan / Mexico / OECD / Thailand / UK / US Central banks Australia / Brazil / Canada / Chile / China / ECB / Hungary / India / Indonesia / Israel / Japan / Mexico / Norway / Russia / Sweden / Switzerland / Thailand / UK / US"
},
{
"docid": "426324",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "180644",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again."
},
{
"docid": "226749",
"title": "",
"text": "Robert Shiller published US Stock Market data from 1871. Ken French also has historical data on his website. Damodaran has a bunch of historical data, here is some historical S&P data."
},
{
"docid": "281735",
"title": "",
"text": "There is empirical data to suggest deregulation in healthcare would drive down prices. https://thinkprogress.org/how-one-oklahoma-hospital-is-driving-down-the-cost-of-health-care-by-thousands-of-dollars-f507cdf32111. In a free market where prices are transparent, prices go down. As to your pharmaceutical example, that is a form of protectionism regulation. The reason why epipen is able to charge that price is because they have a patent protection (protectionism) that lasts through 2025. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/09/epipen-lack-of-innovation/. There is no substitute. If there were a reform in pharma laws that made pharmaceutical company have to share their patents for licensing costs (similar to how cellular providers must provide access to their networks for a fee) then the price would go down. Market forces do reign supreme. It is supply and demand. As simple as that. If there is a market with a lot of profit, in a free market, participants will enter the market until the profit drops down to zero. That is why you cannot charge 10 dollars for a big mac in the same city where a McDonalds 1 mile away charges 5 dollars."
},
{
"docid": "346735",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify. Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is \"\"simply\"\" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity.\""
},
{
"docid": "317803",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed \"\"too high\"\" and buy 10 which are \"\"too low\"\" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals.\""
},
{
"docid": "560108",
"title": "",
"text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart."
},
{
"docid": "292480",
"title": "",
"text": "While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else."
},
{
"docid": "168347",
"title": "",
"text": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate."
},
{
"docid": "535343",
"title": "",
"text": "Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d"
},
{
"docid": "568534",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two ways to measure the value of money in the past. 1) As Victor mentioned there are inflation statistics covering the last 100 or so years that value the currency against an ever-changing basket of goods. This is sufficient when measuring general inflation over the period of the hundred years where there is data. This is how it was measured in your example. 2) For older time periods or where a value comparison is required between specific items (particularly where these were not in the basket of goods used for the inflation calculation) Historical records of the price of comparable goods can be used. This is in effect the same as mark to market valuations for illiquid financial instruments and requires poring through records to find the price of either a comparable basket of goods to one that would be used for inflation calculations today or a comparable set of items. An example of this is finding the value of a particular type of house (say a terraced house in London) in the 19th Century compared to the same house today by finding records of how much comparable houses would sell for, on average, then and now. This second measure is also used where the country in question didn't or doesn't keep reliable inflation statistics which may well be true of Colombia in the 90s. This means that there is a chance that this way of estimating Escobar's wealth in today's terms may have also been used. Another notable reason to use this methodology is that (unless you are using exchange rates in purchasing power parity terms) the value of money held in different currencies is different. This is even true today as the value of $1 in INR in India is likely to be higher than the value of a dollar in the US in terms of what you can buy. Using this methodology allows for a more accurate comparison in values where different countries and currencies are involved."
},
{
"docid": "293048",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\""
},
{
"docid": "480318",
"title": "",
"text": "IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments."
}
] |
5369 | Paying for things on credit and immediately paying them off: any help for credit rating? | [
{
"docid": "171339",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One of the factors of a credit score is the \"\"length of time revolving accounts have been established\"\". Having a credit card with any line of credit will help in this regard. The account will age regardless of your use or utilization. If you are having issues with credit limits and no credit history, you may have trouble getting financing for the purchase. You should be sure you're approved for financing, and not just that the financing option is \"\"available\"\" (potentially with the caveat of \"\"for well qualified borrowers\"\"). Generally, if you've gotten approved for financing, that will come in the form of another credit card account (many contracting and plumbing companies will do this in hopes you will use the card for future purchases) or a bank loan account (more common for auto and home loans). With the credit card account, you might be able to perform a balance transfer, but there are usually fees associated with that. For bank loan accounts, you probably can't pay that off with a credit card. You'll need to transfer money to the account via ACH or send in a check. In short: I wouldn't bet on paying with your current credit card to get any benefit. IANAL. Utilizing promotional offers, whether interest-free for __ months, no balance transfer fees, or whatever, and passing your debt around is not illegal, not fraudulent, and in many cases advised (this is a link), though that is more for people to distribute utilization across multiple cards, and to minimize interest accrued. Many people, myself included, use a credit card for purchasing EVERYTHING, then pay it off in full every month (or sometimes immediately) to reap the benefit of cash back rewards and other cardholder benefits. I've also made a major payment (tuition, actually) on a Discover card, and opened up a new Visa card with 18-months of no interest and no balance transfer fees to let the bill sit for 12 months while I finished school and got a job.\""
}
] | [
{
"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": "288268",
"title": "",
"text": "1. you want /r/personalfiance 2. 1 payment or 4-5 makes no difference 3. what makes the difference are a) interest rate b) pay as much as possible every month 4. pay as much as you can into the credit card with the highest interest rate, and the minimum payment on the rest; as you pay off a credit card, make as big of a payment to the one that has the highest interest rate 5. stop charging anything on any credit card and stop getting into any kind of debt 6. as you pay off a credit card, call the company and cancel it."
},
{
"docid": "248758",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\""
},
{
"docid": "169632",
"title": "",
"text": "I think most people have already answered this one pretty well. (It's usually worth it, as long as you pay it off before the interest kicks in, and you don't get hit with any fees.) I just wanted to add one thing that no one else has pointed out: Applying for the loan usually counts as a hard pull on your credit history. It also changes your Debt-to-income ratio (DTI). This can negatively impact your credit score. Usually, the credit score impact for these (relatively) small loans isn't that much. And your score will rebound over time. However, if it makes your score drop below a certain threshold, (e.g. FICO dips below 700), it could trip you up if you are also applying for other sources of credit in the immediate future. Not a big deal, but it is something to keep in mind."
},
{
"docid": "386668",
"title": "",
"text": "These are the things to focus on... do not put yourself in debt with a car, there are other better solutions. 1) Get a credit card (Unless you already have one) -Research this and get the best cash back or points card you can get at the best rate. - Start with buying gas and groceries every month do not run the balance up. - Pay the card off every single month. (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - Never carry a balance above 25% of your credit limit. - Every 8 months or so call your credit card company and ask for a credit line increase. They should be able to do this WITHOUT pulling your credit you are only looking for the automatic increment that they can automatically approve. This will help increase your available credit and will help keep your credit utilization low. Only do this is you are successfully doing the other bullet points above. 2) Pay all of your bills on time, this includes everything from water, electricity, phone bill, etc. never be late. Setup automatic payments if you can. 3) Minimize the number of hard credit inquiries. -This is particularly important when you are looking for your mortgage lender. Do not let them pull your credit automatically. You should be able to provide them your credit score and other information and get quotes from those lenders. Do not let them tell you then can't do this... they can. 4)Strategically plan when you close a credit line, closing them will do two things, lower your credit limit often times increasing your credit utilization, and it may hurt your average age of credit. Open one credit card and keep it forever. *Note: Credit Karma is a great tool, you should check your score monthly and see how your efforts are influencing your score. I also like Citi credit cards because they will provide you monthly with your FICO Score which Credit Karma will only provide TransUnion and Equifax. This is educational information and you should consider talking to a banker/lender who can also give you more detailed instructions on how to get your credit improved so that they can approve you for a loan. Many people can get their score above 720 in 1-2 years time going from no credit doing the steps described above. It does take time be patient and don't fall for gimmicks."
},
{
"docid": "233892",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged."
},
{
"docid": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
},
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "220032",
"title": "",
"text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence."
},
{
"docid": "207591",
"title": "",
"text": "To answer your question, the $30 and it accrues monthly if you carry the balance forward. However, don't do that. Only use your credit card on things you can immediately pay off right away. Don't pay extra money for things and don't pay for things you can't afford. As a recent college grad, I've seen way too many people have $1,000+ in credit card debt while in school. That's just nutty. If you have any other questions let me know."
},
{
"docid": "259764",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know the details of whether or not you should pay this money, or who is at fault. But clearly, you believe that you do not owe the money, and the bank investigation seems to agree with you, since they gave you your money back. Since you have your money, and they haven't sued you, the only issue yet remaining is your credit report. Here is what I would suggest. First, make sure you check all three credit reports, to see which reports the collection appears on. Then dispute the report with each credit bureau reporting the problem. There is an article on CreditKarma that explains the process. When you file your dispute with the credit bureau(s), they will investigate. This usually involves asking the creditor for proof of the debt, and if you didn't sign anything, they probably won't have any proof. Hopefully, the credit bureaus will come to the same conclusion as the bank did, and remove the collection from your credit reports. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to pay them now, if you don't believe you owe it. Paying them won't remove all the bad stuff from your credit report (but it will improve it), and you don't want to pay them and then immediately sue them. If, however, the credit bureaus side with the landlord and leave this on your report, paying the $300 is better on your report than leaving the \"\"unpaid debt\"\" on there.\""
},
{
"docid": "569628",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\""
},
{
"docid": "288701",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot."
},
{
"docid": "543776",
"title": "",
"text": "Since you are not paying the full balance off each month you are carrying a balance from month to month. That balance is being charged some interest rate X. With a balance transfer, the new credit card pays off that balance. As a result you now have a balance of the same amount (plus any processing charges) on the new credit card. Hence the balance has transferred from the old to the new. And you now pay the new credit card. Ideally you do this because the new credit card is offering a reduced interest rate, saving you money. Though be warned often that transfer rate is a limited time deal and any left over after the window expires will be charged the higher rate."
},
{
"docid": "293363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "321436",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing is to look at the monthly cost of the loan. The one from the company is interest free. While it is unlikely that a bank will have a zero percent loan, you will also have to look at what the seller will offer. The next thing to look at is the term of the loan. When comparing two loans with the same interest rate the shorter term loan will cost more per month. Many times when an auto dealer offers a zero percent loan they also have a very short term: 12-24 months; Many people can't afford the monthly payments with that short a term. You said you could afford to save the other $2000 in about six months. That means you could set aside $333 a month to do it in six months. If the loan from the employer has a term longer than 6 months you should be able to afford the loan. Keep in mind that the employer will probably be taking the money right out of your paychecks. You do have to look at the conditions attached to the loan. What does accepting the loan do to your employment situation? If you leave early do they want you to pay it back in 30 days, or will they take the rest from the final paycheck, or do you have longer? You do have to look at the term of the loan, and see if you can pay it off early. If they require a 12 month term can you end it earlier, or change the monthly payment to end it early? The reason why you care about the term is that if the term is 24 months then after a year you still owe them $1000; which if you have to pay back immediately if you quit, it may make it hard for you to leave the company. A minor note: They probably are not reporting it to the credit reporting agencies therefore it wont help your credit score. This is probably not a big issue since you are considering going without a loan."
},
{
"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": "479599",
"title": "",
"text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank."
},
{
"docid": "91183",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\""
}
] |
5369 | Paying for things on credit and immediately paying them off: any help for credit rating? | [
{
"docid": "44223",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest risk is Credit Utilization rate. If you have a total of $10,000 in revolving credit (ie: credit card line) and you ever have more than 50% (or 33% to be conservative) on the card at any time then your credit score will be negatively impacted. This will be a negative impact even if you charge it on day one and pay it off in full on day 2. Doesn't make much sense but credit companies are playing the averages: on average they find that people who get close to maxing their credit limit are in some sort of financial trouble. You're better off to make small purchases each month, under $100, and pay them off right away. That will build a better credit history - and score."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "288268",
"title": "",
"text": "1. you want /r/personalfiance 2. 1 payment or 4-5 makes no difference 3. what makes the difference are a) interest rate b) pay as much as possible every month 4. pay as much as you can into the credit card with the highest interest rate, and the minimum payment on the rest; as you pay off a credit card, make as big of a payment to the one that has the highest interest rate 5. stop charging anything on any credit card and stop getting into any kind of debt 6. as you pay off a credit card, call the company and cancel it."
},
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "293363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "233892",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged."
},
{
"docid": "529229",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\""
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
},
{
"docid": "409573",
"title": "",
"text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either."
},
{
"docid": "577542",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off your loan in full will most likely not help your credit score, and could potentially even hurt it. Because car loans are installment loans (and thus differ from consumer credit), lenders really only like seeing that you responsibly pay off your loans on time. They don't really care if you pay it off early--lenders like seeing open lines of credit as long as you manage them well. The hard inquiry will simply lower your credit score a few points for up to two years. So, from a credit score perspective, you're really not going to help yourself in this scenario (although it's not like you're going to be plummeting yourself either)."
},
{
"docid": "110371",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few things you should keep in mind when getting another vehicle: DON'T use dealership financing. Get an idea of the price range you're looking for, and go to your local bank or find a local credit union and get a pre-approval for a loan amount (that will also let you know what kind of interest rates you'll get). Your credit score is high enough that you shouldn't have any problems securing a decent APR. Check your financing institution's rules on financing beyond the vehicle's value. The CU that refinanced my car noted that between 100% and 120% of the vehicle's value means an additional 2% APR for the life of the loan. Value between 120% and 130% incurred an additional 3% APR. Your goal here is to have the total amount of the loan less than or equal to the value of the car through the sale / trade-in of your current vehicle, and paying off whatever's left out of pocket (either as a down-payment, or simply paying off the existing loan). If you can't manage that, then you're looking at immediately being upside-down on the new vehicle, with a potential APR penalty."
},
{
"docid": "409927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"promptly paying off the outstanding balance\"\", do you mean you pay it off literally as soon as you have incurred the debt? It is important to actually let the debt post on a statement before you pay it off. If you pay it off before the statement posts then this won't help your credit at all. Once the statement posts you can pay the entire balance off before the due date and you will still pay no interest. Assuming you are allowing the balance to actually post on your statements, you can simply continue to do this and your credit score will improve over time as your account(s) get older and you show that you are reliable. The only other way to improve your credit score is to open more accounts. In the short term this will actually hurt your score, as it will decrease your average age of account and add an inquiry. However in the mid-long term, this will improve your score as having more accounts of a variety of types is better for your score. Having an installment loan such as an auto loan or home loan is good for your score as it is different from a credit card - however you should definitely not engage in one of these unless it makes financial sense for other reasons. Don't add debt just to build your credit score. You could just open more credit cards. Like I said it will hurt your score in the short term but improve it in the mid-long term. Open cards with a variety of benefits so you can use them for different things to get better rewards.\""
},
{
"docid": "114303",
"title": "",
"text": "what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "393866",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\""
},
{
"docid": "248758",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\""
},
{
"docid": "169632",
"title": "",
"text": "I think most people have already answered this one pretty well. (It's usually worth it, as long as you pay it off before the interest kicks in, and you don't get hit with any fees.) I just wanted to add one thing that no one else has pointed out: Applying for the loan usually counts as a hard pull on your credit history. It also changes your Debt-to-income ratio (DTI). This can negatively impact your credit score. Usually, the credit score impact for these (relatively) small loans isn't that much. And your score will rebound over time. However, if it makes your score drop below a certain threshold, (e.g. FICO dips below 700), it could trip you up if you are also applying for other sources of credit in the immediate future. Not a big deal, but it is something to keep in mind."
},
{
"docid": "569628",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\""
},
{
"docid": "138511",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts."
},
{
"docid": "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": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
}
] |
5374 | What were the main causes of the spike and drop of DRYS's stock price? | [
{
"docid": "152688",
"title": "",
"text": "Because it's a declining company and used as an institutional sized pump and dump with a new toxic financing every week. Look up Kalani Investments - they're behind it all."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "240215",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\""
},
{
"docid": "247101",
"title": "",
"text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work."
},
{
"docid": "120061",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from \"\"the last few years\"\" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high.\""
},
{
"docid": "166448",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The failure of the Facebook IPO has everything to do with public access to markets. It certainly was overvalued at issue and there were a host of other problems as well but, the main issue that has caused the problem is that there were too many \"\"Armchair Analysts\"\" in on it. Less sofisiticated investors got in on Facebook at $38+ because they liked Facebook and everyone they knew liked Facebook. By and large they couldn't read a balance sheet or describe how the firm made money. As such as soon as it began to decline they sold without regard for the loss. Very few if any professionals actually baught it at launch and more than One pro shorted the position and cleaned up. I find it humorous that while most people would never think of trying to buy a house withotu a realtor they are perfectly happy buying thier own stocks without professional advice. Say what you want about the finance industry but, for the VAST majority of people having an advisor is a far smarter option.\""
},
{
"docid": "430071",
"title": "",
"text": "Inflation can go up for a number of reasons. Boom times can cause inflation, as everyone is making and spending a lot of money, so prices and inflation goes up. In times like these central banks usually increase interest rates to curb spending and thus bring down inflation. By raising interest rates the central bank is increasing the cost of borrowing money. So with high prices and a higher cost to borrowing money, most people start reducing their spending. When this happens businesses sell less stock and have increased costs (due to higher interest rates) so have to lay off staff or reduce their hours at work, so people will have even less money to spend. This causes prices to fall and reduces inflation and can result in a recession. At this point in time central banks start reducing interest rates to make the cost of borrowing money cheaper and stimulate people to start spending again. And so the cycle continues. The result in this case is that inflation itself didn't kerb demand, but was helped along by the central bank rising interest rates. Another reason causing inflation can be a restriction on the supply of certain goods or services. An example we went through about 2 years ago was when floods caused banana crops up in Northern Australia to be devastated. This caused a lack of supply in bananas for almost a year across Australia. The normal price for bananas here is between $1 to $3 per kg. During this period banana prices skyrocketed up to $14 per kg. The result: very few were buying bananas. So the increase in price here caused a reduction in demand directly."
},
{
"docid": "157597",
"title": "",
"text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here."
},
{
"docid": "133373",
"title": "",
"text": "It has got to do with the irrationality of humans. The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in. It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it. They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing."
},
{
"docid": "499344",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa. However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to \"\"right-to-work\"\" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy).\""
},
{
"docid": "355662",
"title": "",
"text": "There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice."
},
{
"docid": "24822",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates."
},
{
"docid": "447832",
"title": "",
"text": "We definitely do not have a free market - never have. That's why it's all messed up and don't have an Amazon for healthcare and your insurance is through your employer (tax breaks). FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance/hospital regulations have been around for years. The reason why all of these prices are spiking and and quality is dropping is because the Government continues to involve it self (like all other areas with high prices: education, housing, etc.). Freedom is moral and efficient. Stealing is not."
},
{
"docid": "432511",
"title": "",
"text": "The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop. My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all."
},
{
"docid": "370725",
"title": "",
"text": "If he triple dipped right now he wouldn't have the shares he needs to keep bleeding the company dry. The stock price isn't in the long game, Sears' land holdings is though. What happens when Sears can't pay him back? He'll just take payment in the form of more property. Problem solved!"
},
{
"docid": "493043",
"title": "",
"text": "It seems to be that your main point is this: No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one..."
},
{
"docid": "323768",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(See also the question How many stocks I can exercise per stock warrant? and my comments there). Clearly, at the prices you quote, it does not seem sensible to exercise your warrants at the moment, since you can still by \"\"units\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) and bare stock at below the $11.50 it would cost you to exercise your warrant. So when would exercising a warrant become \"\"a sensible thing to do\"\"? Obviously, if the price of the bare stock (which you say is currently $10.12) were to sufficiently exceed $11.50, then it would clearly be worth exercising a warrant and immediately selling the stock you receive (\"\"sufficiently exceed\"\" to account for any dealing costs in selling the newly-acquired stock). However, looking more closely, $11.50 isn't the correct \"\"cut-off\"\" price. Consider three of the units you bought at $10.26 each. For $30.78 you received three shares of stock and one warrant. For an additional $11.50 ($42.28 in total) you can have a total of four shares of stock (at the equivalent of $10.57 each). So, if the price of the bare stock rises above $10.57, then it could become sensible to exercise one warrant and sell four shares of stock (again allowing a margin for the cost of selling the stock). The trading price of the original unit (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) shouldn't (I believe) directly affect your decision to exercise warrants, although it would be a factor in deciding whether to resell the units you've already got. As you say, if they are now trading at $10.72, then having bought them at $10.26 you would make a profit if sold. Curiously, unless I'm missing something, or the figures you quote are incorrect, the current price of the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant; $10.72) seems overpriced compared to the price of the bare stock ($10.12). Reversing the above calculation, if bare stock is trading at $10.12, then four shares would cost $40.48. Deducting the $11.50 cost-of-exercising, this would value three \"\"combined units\"\" at $28.98, or $9.66 each, which is considerably below the market price you quote. One reason the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) is trading at $10.72 instead of $9.66 could be that the market believes the price of the bare share (currently $10.12) will eventually move towards or above $11.50. If that happens, the option of exercising warrants at $11.50 becomes more and more attractive. The premium presumably reflects this potential future benefit. Finally, \"\"Surely I am misunderstand the stock IPO's intent.\"\": presumably, the main intent of Social Capital was to raise as much money as possible through this IPO to fund their future activities. The \"\"positive view\"\" is that they expect this future activity to be profitable, and therefore the price of ordinary stock to go up (at least as far as, ideally way beyond) the $11.50 exercise price, and the offering of warrants will be seen as a \"\"thank you\"\" to those investors who took the risk of taking part in the IPO. A completely cynical view would be that they don't really care what happens to the stock price, but that \"\"offering free stuff\"\" (or what looks like \"\"free stuff\"\") will simply attract more \"\"punters\"\" to the IPO. In reality, the truth is probably somewhere between those two extremes.\""
},
{
"docid": "363421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\""
},
{
"docid": "420046",
"title": "",
"text": "You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc. AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock."
},
{
"docid": "209754",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\""
},
{
"docid": "24537",
"title": "",
"text": "\"During the day, market and limit orders are submitted at any time by market participants and there is a bid and an ask that move around over time. Trades occur whenever a market order is submitted or a limit order is submitted that at a price that matches or exceeds an existing limit order. If you submit a market order, it may consume all best-price limit orders and you can get multiple prices, changing the bid or ask at the same time. All that stuff happens during the trading day only. What happens at the end of the day is different. A bunch of orders that were submitted during the day but marked as \"\"on close\"\" are aggregated with any outstanding limit orders to create a single closing price according to the algorithm established by the exchange. Each exchange may handle the details of this closing event differently. For example, the Nasdaq's closing cross or the NYSE's closing auction. The close is the most liquid time of the day, so investors who are trading large amounts and not interested in intraday swings will often submit a market-on-close or limit-on-close order. This minimizes their chance of affecting the price or crossing a big spread. It's actually most relevant for smaller stocks, which may have too little volume during the day to make big trades, but have plenty at the close. In short, the volume you see is due to these on-close orders. The spike in volume most likely has no special information about what will happen overnight or the next day. It's probably just a normal part of the market for illiquid stocks.\""
}
] |
5380 | Can somebody explain “leveraged debt investment positions” and “exposures” in this context for me, please? | [
{
"docid": "549254",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "155960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bankruptcy is a way to the fiat currency system to regulate itself. The current system assume that there will always be more debts than money available. Since money is created with debt already attached to it, the difference between \"\"real\"\" money, and \"\"on paper\"\" money build up over time. When this disparity become to big, bankruptcies need to occur to bring those two number closer to each other. It's like earthquakes if you like, the tectonic plates build up tension that need to be released in many small shocks, or a few big shocks. The everyday bankruptcies represent the small quakes, and big recession represent too much build up that need to be released in one big shocks. It's a very high level explanation and it doesn't go into details, but it's roughly why it happens. EDIT: I wasn't saying that it was bad or not, I was simply explaining bankruptcy and why it's bound to happen. If you don't like the analogy, it's no reason for downvote. I know it may not be clear for everyone, but if you do not agree, please explain yourself.\""
},
{
"docid": "559363",
"title": "",
"text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation."
},
{
"docid": "315930",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?"
},
{
"docid": "99131",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\""
},
{
"docid": "255102",
"title": "",
"text": "You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose."
},
{
"docid": "251111",
"title": "",
"text": "It's not rocket science. Verizon, for example, runs a 6% margin. Finances of huge corporations are quite public. Sure, the telcos could invest more into wireless infrastructure, but it's not like these companies aren't operating at close to their capacity. And when you look down a rung on the ladder at tower companies, they're heavily leveraged and generally in debt due to expansion that they hope will pay off in the future. The way you see it discussed on reddit, you would think that we could have 100% 7g coverage if it wasn't for corporate greed, but in reality these companies are already running at very high speeds and make liberal use of leverage and debt to expand as quick as they can."
},
{
"docid": "165659",
"title": "",
"text": "ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)"
},
{
"docid": "384084",
"title": "",
"text": "\"just curious what qualifies this as a \"\"hedge fund\"\". is it structured as an LLC? are they charging Apple 2%/20% fees? are they shorting or using derivatives or leverage to manage risk or amplify returns? are they employing sophisticated investment strategies? are they managing funds for outside investors? sounds to me like a standard cash management and tax avoidance operation of a (very large) corporation that somebody is calling a \"\"hedge fund\"\" to claim it is the world's largest. I'm sure most major corporations are running something similar to this and nobody calls them hedge funds.\""
},
{
"docid": "424717",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\""
},
{
"docid": "395765",
"title": "",
"text": "College professor here. I often think about the fact that all the information I teach is available online. Students are paying a premium for my course- what of value do I bring? **Filter** There is a lot of good information online, but there is also a lot of inaccurate information. I filter out inaccurate information. **Structure** I organize material in a way that makes it easier to digest **Elaboration** I provide context and examples. I'm able to explain complex topics in several different ways in case students don't get it the first time. **Motivation** I explain *why* students need to learn something; I hold them accountable for deadlines. **Social interaction** I get students to talk with one another and see material from multiple view points. **Feedback** This is, in my opinion, the most valuable thing I provide to students, and I invest *a lot* of time in it. What are students doing well? What are they not doing well? How can they improve? This doesn't mean intelligent, motivated individuals can't learn from online materials as well as in a classroom- I believe they can. But the classroom environment does provide some advantages over teaching yourself material online."
},
{
"docid": "50812",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A currency devaluation isn't a hard default, please don't confuse the two. Although most times a sizable devaluation does lead to default and usually most successful defaults are accompanied by a devaluation. Here is an [article](http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/how-the-necessary-greek-devaluation-and-default-should-and-hopefully-would-happen/). >There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm sure Greece would love to do that if they could. You really think Greece with a GDP to Debt ratio of 164% (as of 2011) is going to be able to pay back it's debts in a orderly fashion? Come on. Austerity is only going to result in recession/stagnation and at best slower growth and since they are getting loans from the IMF/EU - they are taking on even more debt! So they are being put into a position of no economic growth while expanding their debt burden - yeah that's really sustainable! ;). >AFTER the \"\"evil capitalists\"\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve Just because I think the most viable option for Greece is a currency devaluation does not make me a \"\"evil capitalist\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "90996",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Have your story down pat, when they ask \"\"So tell me about yourself\"\" or \"\"So tell me about this past position\"\" you should be able to speak confidently about it while not coming off as pre rehearsed When they ask \"\"So why this position\"\" have the usual corny answers ready, ie \"\"I've always had an interest in X and believe this would be an amazing opportunity to learn blah blah blah\"\". Mention how the job duties/description is also what you were looking for as you'll have exposure to different functions, even if the job is boring as fuck Smile/smirk if they try a funny joke, don't be afraid to BS with them I have some interview guides if you want to pm me an email address\""
},
{
"docid": "558088",
"title": "",
"text": "Properties do in fact devaluate every year for several reasons. One of the reasons is that an old property is not the state of the art and cannot therefore compete with the newest properties, e.g. energy efficiency may be outdated. Second reason is that the property becomes older and thus it is more likely that it requires expensive repairs. I have read somewhere that the real value depreciation of properties if left practically unmaintained (i.e. only the repairs that have to absolutely be performed are made) is about 2% per year, but do not remember the source right now. However, Properties (or more accurately, the tenants) do pay you rent, and it is possible in some cases that rent more than pays for the possible depreciation in value. For example, you could ask whether car leasing is a poor business because cars depreciate in value. Obviously it is not, as the leasing payments more than make for the value depreciation. However, I would not recommend properties as an investment if you have only small sums of money. The reasons are manyfold: So, as a summary: for large investors property investments may be a good idea because large investors have the ability to diversify. However, large investors often use debt leverage so it is a very good question why they don't simply invest in stocks with no debt leverage. For small investors, property investments do not often make sense. If you nevertheless do property investments, remember the diversification, also in time. So, purchase different kinds of properties and purchase them in different times. Putting a million USD to properties at one point of time is very risky, because property prices can rise or fall as time goes on."
},
{
"docid": "126460",
"title": "",
"text": ">You were an unsecured creditor. Yes, but his situation was more complicated than your run of the mill unsecured creditor. He had a trading account. It may very well have been technically *structured*, for accounting purposes, as unsecured credit - but the reasonable assumption for the average person is that trading/deposit accounts are held in trust rather than as individual investments/grants which the company can use how it pleases with just the promise to pay you back later. Now, granted, somebody with a Refco forex account should be sophisticated enough to understand the difference - but that doesn't change the fact that even such investors might normally just assume that their accounts are being sequestered. It would make the most sense. It sounds to me like Refco's accountants, and everybody involved in the process, were thieving scumbags."
},
{
"docid": "344206",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a firm believer in the idea of limiting debt as much as possible. I would not recommend borrowing money for anything other than a reasonably sized mortgage. As a result, my recommendations are going to be geared toward that goal. The top priorities for me, then, would be to make sure, first, that we don't have to go further into debt, and second, that we eliminate the debt that we already have as soon as possible. Here is how I would rate your list: A small emergency fund, perhaps $1000 USD, is going to ensure that, while you are funding other things, you don't end up so cash poor that, if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you are forced to add to your credit card debt. Make this small fund your top priority, and it shouldn't take much more than a month or two to do it. Getting out of debt is important, but if your employer hands out free money, you have to take it. It is just too good of a deal. Get rid of this debt as fast as possible. When you are done, you'll have more income available to you than you've ever had before. Now that you have just gotten done eliminating your debt as fast as possible, don't stop there. Take the income you had been throwing at your debt, and build up your emergency fund to a few months' worth of your expenses. Finishing this fund up will enable you to withstand a small crisis without borrowing anything. You are now in a very strong position financially, and can confidently invest. Deciding which type of retirement account is best for you depends on the details of your situation. Once you are contributing a healthy amount to your retirement funds, you may want to consider paying off your mortgage early. As I said before, I recommend getting down to the last step as quickly as possible. Depending on how much debt you actually have, if you sacrifice for a year or two you could be debt free and in a position to keep all of your investment gains. If you take your time paying off debt, like many people do, you could find yourself 10 years from now still making payments on your loans, still making car payments, and still needlessly sending interest to the banks, eating away at the gains you are making in your investments. If you aren't committed to eliminating your debt quickly, and plan on having payments for a long time, then skip this advice and put retirement savings at the top."
},
{
"docid": "215708",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies."
},
{
"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": "517283",
"title": "",
"text": "Could somebody explain to me exactly why the writer doesn't think this is a win for passive investing? Aren't 'this could happen' statements only relevant to active managers so if you already believe that active investing is more successful than passive then of course you'll just fit this situation to 'there is still potential for major loss, the S&P has tanked x many times' because you believe that there are predictable patterns in markets while the passive investor says that isn't true."
},
{
"docid": "210761",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One of the things I have enjoyed about consulting is the exposure to multiple companies and multiple business units within those companies. In the year I have been at The Gunter Group, I have already worked with multiple clients on projects that span across the respective organizations. It has been very interesting to contrast the clients and more specifically the corporate cultures that exist within those companies. I have participated in and watched various projects being driven in different parts of a client's business and it is interesting to see which projects have been, are, and will be successful. The other day I was reading a report of some analysis done by one of the world's largest and most respected consulting firms. The analysis was essentially outlining a path for success for a broad spectrum of projects of varied scopes and complexities. The analysis, which was very good by the way, touched on a lot of elements of the business that would impact the likelihood of project success. Elements like governance, data analysis, process design, etc. The analysis and the accompanying recommendations were undoubtedly sound given the caliber of the firm, the background research done to support the report, and my own confirmation based on what I have picked up about the client. I try and get my hands on these types of reports whenever possible to see how \"\"the big boys\"\" are doing it, to shape my own thinking, and to have examples of successful presentations. I am, however, always surprised that these reports fail to mention what I consider to be a very big influence on the success of a project and ultimately the success of the organization as a whole. At their core, companies are merely people. A group of people with a collective identity; a corporate culture if you will. Reflecting back on my many interactions with the people that make up these organizations it has become very evident to me that a collaborative corporate culture is a huge discriminator in determining the success of any project. Although it is a macro factor, the collaborative spirit of an organization transcends everything that the company does and/or attempts to do. Here is an example to give context of the premise I am talking about. At client A, the project team I worked with was designing an extremely innovative, complex, and challenging system that has the potential to alter the way they do business. Without going into too much detail, it was a massive undertaking with relatively limited resourcing. At client B, the scope of work I was involved in was relatively straightforward and mirrored business practices at other organizations. The bulk of the effort on my part was driving the creation and adoption of a framework to promote cross functional interaction amongst project teams. A very realistic undertaking with appropriate resourcing. Below are vignettes that illustrate typical exchanges in both organizations. In both organizations I have been directed to connect with a particular individual or group of individuals as it was thought that our respective works may be related in some fashion. Client A: Me - \"\"Let me give you a brief overview of the project I am working on. John Doe recommended I connect with you as your project may intersect with mine in some manner. We may be able to help each other.\"\" (Continue with my overview) Other Party - \"\"Wow, this is great. I actually have really in depth knowledge of X and would love to get involved in the work you are doing. I am actually simultaneously driving Y effort and it would be great if we were aligned. At a high level we are both supporting strategy A so connecting now would really set us up for success. Feel free to include me on your future meetings and I will pass along our high level overview. Also, have you thought about connecting with So and So? They are working in the Z space on a project and it may help to drive your project forward as well.\"\" Client B: Me - \"\"Let me give you a brief overview of the project I am working on. John Doe recommended I connect with you as your project may intersect.......\"\" Other Party - (Interrupts) \"\"Well we have already gotten our project approved at such and such level and we have found that we really don't have any interdependencies with your project.\"\" Me - \"\"Oh, OK. Well I am not really looking to create additional work for anyone. I am just looking to leverage the work we are both already doing. We may be able to help each other.\"\" Other Party - (Interrupts again) \"\"Our project team is really busy and we are on a tight deadline. We don't have the resources we need. I have told John Doe time and again we need more help but until we get it I just really need to focus on X.\"\" Me - \"\"OK. Well how about I jump in to what it is we are actually doing and if there aren't any opportunities for collaboration or any synergies to be gained from working together that is fine. I just wanted to be proactive about connecting the dots across the organization. (Continue with my overview) Other Party - \"\"...........*crickets*...........\"\" (Meeting concludes.....) These aren't depictions of a single event. They are aggregations of month's of interactions that give a good representation of single events in a variety of contexts on a daily basis. Of course, there are exceptions. However, I have found that exceptions within both cultures are extremely rare based on my personal experience. This only furthers my point. Can you begin to see why a collaborative corporate culture is so foundational to the success of any endeavor regardless of scope, complexity, etc? The other aspect that adds to the importance of a sound corporate culture is the self fulfilling nature of culture. Which organization do you think inspires future collaborative behavior? Even those people that want to collaborate within client B are consistently met with resistance. Those in client A are inspired by the positive interactions, enhanced results, and they are more likely to actively seek out others to help and work with. Both trajectories are accelerated in opposite directions just by the nature of the prevailing culture. So how do you create and engender a culture that embodies collaboration? That my friends is a question I don't pretend to have all the answers too. Maybe I'll be so lucky to figure that one out someday......\""
}
] |
5402 | Is it impossible to get a home loan with a poor credit history after a divorce? | [
{
"docid": "491350",
"title": "",
"text": "I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "193641",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old This is fairly straight forward. If you've not been exposed to borrowing for a reasonable length of time, people won't want to lend you money. They have no reason to have any confidence in your ability to repay them. As other said, it's pretty much a case of proving yourself by being good with credit over a period of time. 2. You have no active credit card accounts Credit reference agencies have to consider a variety of factors for a variety of purposes. Notably, they will be used for credit cards, unsecured loans, mortgages, and secured loans such as vehicle finance applications. These all have varying types of customer, and some will be inherently more risky than others. For instance, someone with a mortgage on a home is far more likely to make payments because they would be homeless without, however someone with a finance agreement on a car is relatively less likely to make those payments because all they stand to lose is their car. Consider that the most fruitful information the lender will get is a score and some breakdown of how it's generated, it's a very general understanding of your history. For that reason, having a wide variety of credit is very important. A good variety of credit to have would be one secured loan (e.g car finance) to get started, as well as at least one revolving unsecured credit account (e.g a credit card), and later on in your \"\"credit life\"\" an unsecured fixed term loan (e.g a loan for something which has nothing secured against it). I say the above reluctantly, because that's how I increased my credit score from 450 to 999 - first step was the car finance where in 3 months or so I changed from 450 to around 600, with a credit card I was approaching 900, and once I had an unsecured loan for 8 months I hit 999 - now I have all of the above plus a competitive mortgage and remain at 999. Whether each is mandatory to maintain 999 is debatable but based on personal experience, it seems reasonable.\""
},
{
"docid": "554217",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's what Suze Orman has to say about it: Good debt is money you borrow to purchase an asset, such as a home you can afford. History shows that home values generally rise in step with the inflation rate, so a mortgage is good debt. Student loans are, too, because they're an investment in the future. Census data pegs the average lifetime earnings of a high school graduate at a million dollars below that of someone with a bachelor's degree. Bad debt is money you borrow to buy a depreciating asset or to finance a \"\"want\"\" rather than a \"\"need.\"\" A car is a depreciating asset; from the day you drive it off the lot, it starts losing value. Credit card balances or a home equity line of credit that's used to pay for indulgences—vacations, shopping, spa days—is bad debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "30322",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\""
},
{
"docid": "66805",
"title": "",
"text": "The eligibilty of the deduction is based on what the borrowed money is used to purchase and NOT what asset is used as collateral. So at the beginning of your mortgage, 10% of the interest is deductible because the entire loan was used to purchase the condo. But when you withdraw money from the account the additional interest is usually not deductible. It can get confusing with all the withdrawals and payments that will be coming in and out of the account if you happen to use it a lot like a chequing account. An easy example would be if you only paid the interest on the loan... Say you had a $100 000 loan at 5% APY (for simplicity's sake). After one year, you would have paid $5000 interest. $500 of the would be deductible given that your office is 10% of the condo. Then you buy a $1000 couch and continue to only pay interest for the next year. You would have paid $5100 interest... $5000 on money borrowed to buy the condo, and $100 on money borrowed to buy the couch. So you can still only deduct $500. What happens when you pay back $500 against the line of credit? Could you designate that 100% of the money should be applied to the non-deductible interest? Or does it have to applied proportionally? I don't know. I think it'd would be wise to separate the loans somehow. Manulife may even have some tools to facilitate that. However, I wouldn't recommend the Manulife One product. I looked into when I was buying my house two years ago, and at that time it was too expensive. The rate was the same that other banks were charging for a home equity line of credit (which was prime at the time). You can replicate the Manulife One in a cheaper way using a traditional mortgage and a home equity line of credit... The majority of the loan will be the traditional mortgage at (hopefully) a cheap rate. Then you can use your line of credit as the chequing account."
},
{
"docid": "222476",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a \"\"qualified mortgage\"\", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from \"\"unacceptable\"\" to \"\"acceptable\"\". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just \"\"sit tight\"\" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later.\""
},
{
"docid": "135807",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied."
},
{
"docid": "305049",
"title": "",
"text": "Something I'd like to plant firmly into your mind - If you're able to save up enough money to buy the things you want outright, credit will be of little use to you. Many people find once they've accumulated very good credit scores by use of good financial habits, that they rarely end up using credit, and get little out of having a 'great' credit score compared to an 'average' credit score. Of course, a lot of that would depend on your financial situation, but it's something to keep in mind. As stated by others, and documented widely online, you don't need to make payments on a loan or carry a card balance to build your credit history. Check your credit on a popular site, such as Credit Karma (No affiliation). There, you'll see a detailed breakdown of the different areas of your credit profile that matter; things like: The best thing I could recommend is get a credit line or credit card, and use it responsibly. Carrying a balance will waste money on interest, much like the car payment. Just having it and not over-using it (Or not using it at all) will 'build' your credit history. Of course, some institutions may close your account after X number of years of inactivity. With this in mind, I'd say it's safe to pay off the car loan. Read your agreement and make sure there aren't early termination / early payment fees for this. Edit: There have been notes in the comments section's of question/answer's here about concerns with getting apartment. My two cents here: Most apartments I've seen check your credit for negative marks. Having no credit history, and thus never missing a payment or having a judgement made against you, will likely be enough to get you into most normal-quality apartments, assuming the rest of your application / profile is in order, like: - Good references, if asked for them - At least 2.5x rent payment in gross income etc, things like that. If they really think you're a risk, they may ask for a larger deposit (Though I'm sure in some areas there may be restrictions on whether they can do this, or how much they can do it) and still let you rent there."
},
{
"docid": "216912",
"title": "",
"text": "Some of the items required as part of the home buying and mortgage process are traditionally paid prior to closing. These are usually the items that the buyer purchases as part of the process: home inspection, credit check. These expenses take place early in the process and if the deal falls through due to the inspection or credit history problems the seller doesn't want to get stuck paying for. The buyer will frequently have to write a check for these as they occur. Other items occur later in the process or even at the very end of the process. Determining which side pays for each item is a combination negotiation and local tradition. Even for the items that the buyer has to pay for, there can be a negotiation between the buyer and the lender. Sometimes the lender allows the buyer to roll the closing costs into the loan, this does mean that they will be paying interest on the closing costs for years. But not rolling in the closing costs mean that you need more cash on hand. This is in addition to the down-payment and the costs of moving. The closing costs covered by the seller reduce the size of the check they will receive at the end of the process. Their willingness to kick in this cash is a function of will they still make money on the deal, how many other bidders there were, and do they need the cash to buy their next house. At settlement the forms identify each item involved and who agreed to pay for it, then each side is credited for the items they paid for already. Then each side either writes a check for the balance due or receives a check for their reimbursement. Keep in mind there are also money exchanges that take place at the closing that are not covered by the buyer: real estate commissions. There are also items such as interest for the current month, and property tax credit that depend on the day of the month and month of the year. Sit down with your agent or your lender to get an idea of what you need to pay before closing. Though telling everybody that you will have zero cash to pay for these things may make the lender very nervous about approving a loan."
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "245069",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I dislike this argument that government pressure to make bad loans is the origin of subprime loans. In fact, the term subprime is because those type of loans can't be underwritten by the government. Usually the concept of government forcing bad loans, is government forcing banks to give minorities and low-income people loans for their first houses. The government requires w-2 income and a base credit score to procure these loans. At the peak of the bubble, the majority of home sales were for investment purposes, not homeownership purposes. Those who declared the housing market was wildly unstable (and who were proven right) were talking about the problem of mortgage brokers being incentivized to lie about a person not being qualified for prime government loans, in order to make more money by putting them in lucrative subprime loans (or simply advising them they were better off in subprime and could get cash out up front!). Also, liar no-doc loans were booming and speculators and house flippers were getting multiple properties in order to flip them for profit. Once upon a time these speculators would make sure they could rent out the house for the carrying costs if they needed to. 0 down, 0 interest meant a whole different speculatory ballgame. Ah, but maybe these speculators wouldn't have anyone to sell to if low income people couldn't get prime loans from the gov? All evidence points to them selling to other speculators until there was no fool left to hold the bag. See: Miami, Las Vegas, etc. EDIT: I forget that the argument has hopscotched from Fannie &Freddie, to the end of redlining, to the CRA, and now to changes made to the CRA, where the argument finally gains a bit of traction: > Law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][131] stated that approximately 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made \"\"perhaps one in four\"\" sub-prime loans, and that \"\"the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight\"\" Further, the discussion devolves into whether the idea and enthusiasm of the rest started as a seed from the regulated banks, how much removing risk by Wall Street with non-government backed home loans through credit instruments had its origination in the CRA, and how much of the failure of ratings agencies to properly rate those credit instruments has to do with the US government and the CRA and not regular Wall Street greediness. So originally I stated \"\"no relationship\"\" but yes, once you get into the complexity of it all I'm sure we could find a way to say a global mania in speculation in real estate is due to the American government getting poor people into their first home, and generally has nothing to do with the human condition of wanting something for nothing and getting excited when the government allows you to sell blue sky returns to foolish speculators.\""
},
{
"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": "82472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\""
},
{
"docid": "124699",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit is important for many reasons. Establishing credit is an important step and should be no challenge for someone who already has good habits. The same lessons and advice that you would find for a student to establish credit would be applicable to your case as well. Factors that influence credit score, Since you are already established in your home country (Australia), you probably have a credit card (and references) that you can provide for the first few challenges (renting a car, renting an apartment). Here are the steps, Your credit score should improve quickly as the first couple of credit cards and the installment loan show good payment history, low utilization, and gain some age. After 1-2 years, you should have a good score."
},
{
"docid": "376403",
"title": "",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin."
},
{
"docid": "319052",
"title": "",
"text": "The SCHUFA explicitly says on their website that their scoring system is a secret. However, if your goal is to be credit-worthy for example to get financing for a house or a car or whatever, just pay any loans and your credit card back on time and you'll be fine. There is no need to build a credit history. I just got a mortgage on a new house without any real credit history. I have one credit card which I only use on vacations because some countries don't take my debit card, and I always put money on it before I use it, so I've technically never borrowed money from a bank at all. My banker looked at my SCHUFA with me and we saw that there was nothing in there except for the credit card, which has a 500€ limit and if I maxed it out, the monthly interest would be 6,80€ so he added that 6,80€ to my expenses calculation and that was it. If you're having trouble getting a loan and you don't know why, you can ask the SCHUFA for the data they have on you and you can correct any mistakes they might have made. Sometimes, especially when you have the same full name and birth date as somebody else, the SCHUFA does get things mixed up and you have to sort it out."
},
{
"docid": "192641",
"title": "",
"text": "It may or may not be a good idea to borrow money from your family; there are many factors to consider here, not the least of which is what you would do if you got in serious financial trouble and couldn't make your scheduled payments on the loan. Would you arrange with them to sell the property ASAP? Or could they easily manage for a few months without your scheduled payments if it were necessary? A good rule of thumb that some people follow when lending to family is this: don't do it unless you're 100% OK with the possibility that they might not pay you back at all. That said, your question was about credit scores specifically. Having a mortgage and making on-time payments would factor into your score, but not significantly more heavily than having revolving credit (eg a credit card) and making on time payments, or having a car loan or installment loan and making on time payments. I bought my house in 2011, and after years of paying the mortgage on time my credit score hasn't changed at all. MyFico has a breakdown of factors affecting your credit score here: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx. The most significant are a history of on-time payments, low revolving credit utilization (carrying a $4900 balance on a card with a $5000 limit is bad, carrying a $10 balance on the same card is good), and overall length of your credit history. As to credit mix, they have this to say: Types of credit in use Credit mix determines 10% of my FICO Score The FICO® Score will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. It's not necessary to have one of each, and it's not a good idea to open credit accounts you don’t intend to use. The credit mix usually won’t be a key factor in determining your FICO Score—but it will be more important if your credit report does not have a lot of other information on which to base a score. Have credit cards – but manage them responsibly Having credit cards and installment loans with a good payment history will raise your FICO Score. People with no credit cards tend to be viewed as a higher risk than people who have managed credit cards responsibly."
},
{
"docid": "592780",
"title": "",
"text": "How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so? Very unlikely in the next year. The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not. Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made."
},
{
"docid": "335361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"She may be right. If she gets the usual thing of half the family assets gained during marriage, she's also entitled to half the car. Well, not quite. Imagine you had sold the car at the time of divorce. You would have gotten some cash for it (this is typically shown in the Blue Book). And then you would have had to pay off the loan. So the cash value at that time, minus the loan owed at that time, was the equity in the car at that time. That would be a family asset and she'd have been entitled to half of it. A lot of auto loans are a ripoff, so this might not be much money. Or could be zero. Or could even be negative - it's common to owe more on a car than it's worth, especially the first year after you buy it. In which case she owes you LOL. The judge already dealt with this, and he did it by saying \"\"you two get together and try to work it out\"\", and come back to me with a proposed settlement.\"\" If you are at loggerheads, you can go back to the judge, but he may not give an answer you like.\""
}
] |
5402 | Is it impossible to get a home loan with a poor credit history after a divorce? | [
{
"docid": "227485",
"title": "",
"text": "No, it is never impossible to get credit so long as there are no price controls or quotas. In most of the United States, the impetus for housing is so strong that it's one sector of credit that has nearly no price regulation, price in this case being interest rates. Corporate banks will not touch you now because Dodd-Frank now makes them liable to you and investors if you default on the mortgage. Also, Fannie & Freddie, who ultimately finance most mortgages in the US now require banks to buy back loans if they fail, so banks are only financing the most creditworthy. All is not lost because markets are like rivers if not fully dammed: they find a way through. In your case, you can get a fully-financed mortgage if you're willing to pay interest rates probably double what you could otherwise get in the market with good credit. If the foreclosure process is quick and benefits the lender more in your state, the interest rate will be even lower. Your creditors will most likely be individuals you find at mortgage investment clubs and religious institutions. If you shop around, you'll be surprised at how low a rate you might get. Also, since the cost of your prospective home is so low, it's very easy for an investor flush with cash and few investments to take a flier on a mother committed to her children who only needs $50,000. The FHA has been vastly expanded, and since your individual credit is clean, there may be a chance to get financing through it, but be prepared for red tape."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "592780",
"title": "",
"text": "How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so? Very unlikely in the next year. The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not. Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made."
},
{
"docid": "591163",
"title": "",
"text": "Lenders pay attention to where your down payment money comes from. If they see a large transfer of money into your bank account within about a year before your purchase, this WILL cause an issue for you. Down payments are not just there to make the principal smaller; they are primarily used as an underwriting data-point to assess your quality as a borrower. If you take the money as loan, it will count against your credit worthiness. If you take the money as a gift, it will raise some other red flags. All of this is done for a reason: if you can't get a down payment, you are a higher credit risk (poor discipline, lack of consistent income), even if you can (currently) pay the monthly cost of a mortgage. (PS - The cost of home ownership is much higher than the monthly mortgage payment.) Will all this mean you WON'T get a loan? Of course not. You can almost always get SOME loan. But it will likely be at a higher rate than you otherwise would qualify for if you just waited a little bit and saved money for a down payment. (Another option: cheaper house.) EDIT: The below comments provide examples where gifts were/are NOT a problem. My experience from buying a house just a few years ago (and my several friends who bought house in the same period, some with family gifts and some without) is that it IS an issue. Your best bet is to TALK, IN PERSON with an actual mortgage broker in your area who can go through the options with you, and the downsides to various approaches."
},
{
"docid": "376403",
"title": "",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin."
},
{
"docid": "216912",
"title": "",
"text": "Some of the items required as part of the home buying and mortgage process are traditionally paid prior to closing. These are usually the items that the buyer purchases as part of the process: home inspection, credit check. These expenses take place early in the process and if the deal falls through due to the inspection or credit history problems the seller doesn't want to get stuck paying for. The buyer will frequently have to write a check for these as they occur. Other items occur later in the process or even at the very end of the process. Determining which side pays for each item is a combination negotiation and local tradition. Even for the items that the buyer has to pay for, there can be a negotiation between the buyer and the lender. Sometimes the lender allows the buyer to roll the closing costs into the loan, this does mean that they will be paying interest on the closing costs for years. But not rolling in the closing costs mean that you need more cash on hand. This is in addition to the down-payment and the costs of moving. The closing costs covered by the seller reduce the size of the check they will receive at the end of the process. Their willingness to kick in this cash is a function of will they still make money on the deal, how many other bidders there were, and do they need the cash to buy their next house. At settlement the forms identify each item involved and who agreed to pay for it, then each side is credited for the items they paid for already. Then each side either writes a check for the balance due or receives a check for their reimbursement. Keep in mind there are also money exchanges that take place at the closing that are not covered by the buyer: real estate commissions. There are also items such as interest for the current month, and property tax credit that depend on the day of the month and month of the year. Sit down with your agent or your lender to get an idea of what you need to pay before closing. Though telling everybody that you will have zero cash to pay for these things may make the lender very nervous about approving a loan."
},
{
"docid": "171339",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One of the factors of a credit score is the \"\"length of time revolving accounts have been established\"\". Having a credit card with any line of credit will help in this regard. The account will age regardless of your use or utilization. If you are having issues with credit limits and no credit history, you may have trouble getting financing for the purchase. You should be sure you're approved for financing, and not just that the financing option is \"\"available\"\" (potentially with the caveat of \"\"for well qualified borrowers\"\"). Generally, if you've gotten approved for financing, that will come in the form of another credit card account (many contracting and plumbing companies will do this in hopes you will use the card for future purchases) or a bank loan account (more common for auto and home loans). With the credit card account, you might be able to perform a balance transfer, but there are usually fees associated with that. For bank loan accounts, you probably can't pay that off with a credit card. You'll need to transfer money to the account via ACH or send in a check. In short: I wouldn't bet on paying with your current credit card to get any benefit. IANAL. Utilizing promotional offers, whether interest-free for __ months, no balance transfer fees, or whatever, and passing your debt around is not illegal, not fraudulent, and in many cases advised (this is a link), though that is more for people to distribute utilization across multiple cards, and to minimize interest accrued. Many people, myself included, use a credit card for purchasing EVERYTHING, then pay it off in full every month (or sometimes immediately) to reap the benefit of cash back rewards and other cardholder benefits. I've also made a major payment (tuition, actually) on a Discover card, and opened up a new Visa card with 18-months of no interest and no balance transfer fees to let the bill sit for 12 months while I finished school and got a job.\""
},
{
"docid": "41052",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with Joe that you seem to have your stuff together. However I can't disagree more otherwise. You are getting a loan at such a cheap rate that it would be almost impossible to not substantially beat that rate over the next 15-20 years. You paying off your home early might give you warm fuzzy feeling but would make me queezy. This is a MONEY website. Make money. For our purposes let's say your home is worth 500k, you can get a fixed rate loan at 3% over 30 years, and you can earn 7% on your investments per year. Note that I have earned 12% on mine the past 15 years so I am being pretty conservative. So let's not get into your other stuff because that is fine. Let's focus just on that 500k - your house. Interest only Loan for the whole thing- The flip side is you pay off your house. Your house could be worth 400K in 30 years. Probably not but neighborhood could decline, house not kept up, or whatever. Your house is not a risk-free investment. And it fluctuate in many areas more than the stock market. But let's just say your area stays OK or normal. In 30 years you can expect your house to be worth somewhere between 700k to 1.5 million. Let's just say you did GREAT with your house. Guess what? At 1.5 million selling price you still lost 1.5 million because of your decision plus sunk your money into a less liquid option. Let the bank take the risk on your house price. The warm fuzzy feeling will be there when you realize you could rebuy your house two times over in 6-7 years. Note: I know my example doesn't use your exact numbers. I am just showing what your true cost is of making a decision in the most extreme way. I am guessing you have great credit and might be able to find an all interest loan at 3%. So not doing this is costing you 1.5 million over 30 years. Given a lower home price after 30 years or a higher rate of return this easily be much more. IF you earned 12% over the 30 year period you would be costing yourself 16 million - do the math. Now you are talking about doing something in-between. Which means you will basically have the same risk factors with less return."
},
{
"docid": "79511",
"title": "",
"text": "I can say for certain that everyone in my group of friends had to wait a long time to buy homes, some including me still rent, due to the impossibility of saving for a downpayment with sky high rent and $1000+ dollar a month student loan payments. It basically took until they paid the loans off after 10 years or got management level positions at excellent salaries before they could start saving for a down payment. Probably hundreds of thousands of people have this same experience."
},
{
"docid": "60282",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\""
},
{
"docid": "30322",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\""
},
{
"docid": "594595",
"title": "",
"text": "The issue is that the lender used two peoples income, debts, and credit history to loan both of you money to purchase a house. The only way to get a person off the loan, is to get a new loan via refinancing. The new loan will then be based on the income, debt, and credit history of one person. There is no paperwork you can sign, or the ex-spouse can sign, that will force the original lender to remove somebody from the loan. There is one way that a exchange of money between the two of you could work: The ex-spouse will have to sign paperwork to prove that it is not a loan that you will have to payback. I picked the number 20K for a reason. If the amount of the payment is above 14K they will have to document for the IRS that this is a gift, and the amount above 14K will be counted as part of their estate when they die. If the amount of the payment is less than 14K they don't even have to tell the IRS. If the ex-souse has remarried or you have remarried the multiple payments can be constructed to exceed the 14K limit."
},
{
"docid": "267422",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit history is local, so when you move to the US you start with the blank slate. Credit history length is a huge factor, so in the first year expect that nobody would trust you and you may be refused credit or asked for deposits. I was asked for deposits at cell phone company and refused for store cards couple of times. My advice - get a secured credit card (that means you put certain sum of money as a deposit in the bank and you get credit equal to that sum of money) and if you have something like a car loan that helps too (of course, you shouldn't buy a car just for that ;) but if you're buying anyway, just know it's not only hurting but also helping when you pay). Once you have a year or two of the history and you've kept with all the payments, you credit score would be OK and everybody would be happy to work with you. In 4-5 years you can have excellent credit record if you pay on time and don't do anything bad. If you are working it the US, a lot of help at first would be to take a letter from your company on an official letterhead saying that you are employed by this and that company and are getting salary of this and that. That can serve as an assurance for some merchants that otherwise would be reluctant to work with you because of the absence of credit history. If you have any assets overseas, especially if they are held in a branch of international bank in US dollars, that could help too. In general, don't count too much on credit for first 1-2 years (though you'd probably could get a car loan, for example, but rates would be exorbitant - easily 10 percentage points higher than with good credit), but it will get better soon."
},
{
"docid": "264326",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You sound like you're already doing a lot to improve your situation... paying off the credit cards, paying off the taxes, started your 401k... I'm in a similar situation, credit ruined & savings gone after the divorce. I know it feels like you're just spinning your wheels, but look at it this way: every monthly payment you make on a debt directly increases your net worth. Paying those bills regularly is one of the single best things you can do right now. As for how you can improve your situation, only two things really jump out at me: 1) $1,300 in rent, plus $300 in utilities, seems quite high for a single man. I don't know the housing costs in your area, though. Depending on where you live, you could cut that in half while still living alone, or get a roommate and save even more. You might have to accept a \"\"suboptimal\"\" living arrangement (like a smaller apartment), but we all have to sacrifice at times. 2) That last $1,000... you really need to budget how it's being spent. Consider cooking at home more / eating out less, or trading in your car for one with lower insurance premiums. Or spending less money on the kids. You say it's for their entertainment, but don't say what that is... are we talking about going to the movies once a month, or rock concerts twice a week? 3) If the kids are on their own for college, it's not the end of the world. I know you want to provide the best future you can for them... help them get good grades, and it'll do more for them than any amount of money. After all those & any other ways you find to save money, even if you can only put a hundred bucks in a savings account at the end of the month (and I'd be surprised if you couldn't put five), do it. Put it in, and leave it there, despite the temptation to take it out and spend it.\""
},
{
"docid": "489659",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer depends on your wife's overall situation, whether you are in a community property state, and other factors. I'm assuming that since your wife paid $5,000 more for a car than it was worth, has a six-year, 25% auto loan and you talk about repossession as a routine event, that her credit history is extremely poor. If that is the case, you're unlikely to be able to refinance, particularly for more than the car is worth. You're in a bad situation, I'd look for a legal clinic at a nearby law school and find out what the law says about your situation in your state. If she has other debt, your best bet is to put the car in a garage somewhere, stop paying and demand better terms with the lender -- threaten bankruptcy. If they don't go for it, and your wife has other debt, she should look into bankruptcy. Given the usurious terms of the loan, you have a fighting chance of keeping the car in a Chapter 13. Find out and the legal implications for this before proceeding. If she doesn't have other debt, you need to figure out to get the thing repossessed on the best possible terms for you. If it's her mother's car, you're in a moral dilemma. Bottom line, get rid of this thing asap. And make sure that going forward you are both controlling the finances."
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "245069",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I dislike this argument that government pressure to make bad loans is the origin of subprime loans. In fact, the term subprime is because those type of loans can't be underwritten by the government. Usually the concept of government forcing bad loans, is government forcing banks to give minorities and low-income people loans for their first houses. The government requires w-2 income and a base credit score to procure these loans. At the peak of the bubble, the majority of home sales were for investment purposes, not homeownership purposes. Those who declared the housing market was wildly unstable (and who were proven right) were talking about the problem of mortgage brokers being incentivized to lie about a person not being qualified for prime government loans, in order to make more money by putting them in lucrative subprime loans (or simply advising them they were better off in subprime and could get cash out up front!). Also, liar no-doc loans were booming and speculators and house flippers were getting multiple properties in order to flip them for profit. Once upon a time these speculators would make sure they could rent out the house for the carrying costs if they needed to. 0 down, 0 interest meant a whole different speculatory ballgame. Ah, but maybe these speculators wouldn't have anyone to sell to if low income people couldn't get prime loans from the gov? All evidence points to them selling to other speculators until there was no fool left to hold the bag. See: Miami, Las Vegas, etc. EDIT: I forget that the argument has hopscotched from Fannie &Freddie, to the end of redlining, to the CRA, and now to changes made to the CRA, where the argument finally gains a bit of traction: > Law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][131] stated that approximately 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made \"\"perhaps one in four\"\" sub-prime loans, and that \"\"the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight\"\" Further, the discussion devolves into whether the idea and enthusiasm of the rest started as a seed from the regulated banks, how much removing risk by Wall Street with non-government backed home loans through credit instruments had its origination in the CRA, and how much of the failure of ratings agencies to properly rate those credit instruments has to do with the US government and the CRA and not regular Wall Street greediness. So originally I stated \"\"no relationship\"\" but yes, once you get into the complexity of it all I'm sure we could find a way to say a global mania in speculation in real estate is due to the American government getting poor people into their first home, and generally has nothing to do with the human condition of wanting something for nothing and getting excited when the government allows you to sell blue sky returns to foolish speculators.\""
},
{
"docid": "554217",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's what Suze Orman has to say about it: Good debt is money you borrow to purchase an asset, such as a home you can afford. History shows that home values generally rise in step with the inflation rate, so a mortgage is good debt. Student loans are, too, because they're an investment in the future. Census data pegs the average lifetime earnings of a high school graduate at a million dollars below that of someone with a bachelor's degree. Bad debt is money you borrow to buy a depreciating asset or to finance a \"\"want\"\" rather than a \"\"need.\"\" A car is a depreciating asset; from the day you drive it off the lot, it starts losing value. Credit card balances or a home equity line of credit that's used to pay for indulgences—vacations, shopping, spa days—is bad debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "293363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "180214",
"title": "",
"text": "If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems. After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down. My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house? If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit."
},
{
"docid": "302412",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have a lack of credit history. Lending is still tight since the recession and companies aren't as willing to take a gamble on people with no history. The secured credit card is the most direct route to building credit right now. I don't think you're going to be applicable for a department store card (pointless anyways and encourages wasteful spending) nor the gas card. Gas cards are credit cards, funded through a bank just like any ordinary credit card, only you are limited to gas purchases at a particular retailer. Although gas cards, department store cards and other limited usage types of credit cards have less requirements, in this post-financial crisis economy, credit is still stringent and a \"\"no history\"\" file is too risky for banks to take on. Having multiple hard inquiries won't help either. You do have a full-time job that pays well so the $500 deposit shouldn't be a problem for the secured credit card. After 6 months you'll get it back anyways. Just remember to pay off in full every month. After 6 months you'll be upgraded to a regular credit card and you will have established credit history.\""
}
] |
5410 | Dealership made me the secondary owner to my own car | [
{
"docid": "13975",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "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": "295355",
"title": "",
"text": "It is a legal issue for two reasons. In the United States if both names were on the title both people would have had to sign the paperwork in order to transfer the title. If the car was collateral for the loan, then the bank would have had to be involved in the transaction. The portion of the check need to repay the loan would have had to have been made out to the bank. If the car was sold to a dealership, then paperwork must have been forged. If the car was sold to a person then it is possible that they were too naive to know what paperwork was required, but it is likely still fraud. You need legal advice to protect your money, and your credit score. They should also be able to tell you who needs to be contacted: DMV, the police, the dealership, the bank."
},
{
"docid": "124258",
"title": "",
"text": "I still think it will be rather difficult. Best bet is to call around to the five or so closest dealers and express you are considering the car contingent on price (NOT PAYMENT). Ask for them to send you their best out-the-door price on a base model. Then when you get quotes from each of them, shop the lowest price around. Usually dealers will budge a few hundred bucks to beat other dealers. But a 2018 STI will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate a few grand under MSRP. Understand that the people that buy this car are not doing so because it is a great bargain. So dealers can usually push this car at or near MSRP. Lastly, do not set foot in a dealership until you have a firm out-the-door price. They will play sales tricks until you give up on negotiation and will pay anything just to get out of there. The only time you should go to the location is to sign papers and drive away with the car. Do not worry about being nice and congenial with the salesperson. This advice got me my current vehicle at about 15% below the lowest True Car estimate. I don't claim this is the best advice out there but it works."
},
{
"docid": "76556",
"title": "",
"text": "Stuff I wish I had known, based on having done the following: Obtained employment at a startup that grants Incentive Stock Options (ISOs); Early-exercised a portion of my options when fair market value was very close to my strike price to minimize AMT; made a section 83b) election and paid my AMT up front for that tax year. All this (the exercise and the AMT) was done out of pocket. I've never see EquityZen or Equidate mention anything about loans for your exercise. My understanding is they help you sell your shares once you actually own them. Stayed at said startup long enough to have my exercised portion of these ISOs vest and count as long term capital gains; Tried to sell them on both EquityZen and Equidate with no success, due to not meeting their transaction minimums. Initial contact with EquityZen was very friendly and helpful, and I even got a notice about a potential sale, but then they hired an intern to answer emails and I remember his responses being particularly dismissive, as if I was wasting their time by trying to sell such a small amount of stock. So that didn't go anywhere. Equidate was a little more friendly and was open to the option of pooling shares with other employees to make a sale in order to meet their minimum, but that never happened either. My advice, if you're thinking about exercising and you're worried about liquidity on the secondary markets, would be to find out what the minimums would be for your specific company on these platforms before you plunk any cash down. Eventually brought my request for liquidity back to the company who helped connect me with an interested external buyer, and we completed the transaction that way. As for employer approval - there's really no reason or basis that your company wouldn't allow it (if you paid to exercise then the shares are yours to sell, though the company may have a right of first refusal). It's not really in the company's best interest to have their shares be illiquid on the secondary markets, since that sends a bad signal to potential investors and future employees."
},
{
"docid": "258326",
"title": "",
"text": "Any car manufacturer that undercuts their own dealer network would have that network fall apart quickly. Tesla is using a dealer-free distribution model from the start, so they don't have that problem. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. GM imposed a uniform no-haggling policy with their Saturn brand, but that policy was coupled with local monopolies for dealers to make it work. Lexus has also experimented with no-haggling and online ordering (with delivery still taking place at a dealership). The rest of Toyota doesn't work that way, though. Some car manufacturers, such as BMW and Audi, allow you to take delivery of your new car at the factory for a discount. But even then, the transaction still takes place through a dealer. Toyota doesn't work that way, though. For one thing, they work at a different scale. If you buy a Camry in the US, it might be produced in Kentucky, Indiana, or Aichi, depending on business conditions. You say that you want to cut out the middleman, but the fact is that you do require someone to deliver a Toyota to you, like it or not. If you're interested in saving money, consider trying various well documented tips, such as negotiating by e-mail before showing up, pitting dealerships against each other. If you don't want to negotiate, you might be able to take advantage of pre-negotiated dealer prices through Costco. You mentioned that the dealership offered you a 7.99% interest rate for your 710 FICO score. That sounds insanely high — I'd expect deals more like 2% advertised by buyatoyota.com. (Remember, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation exists to help Toyota Motor Corporation sell more cars cheaply.) You can also seek alternate financing online (example) or through your own bank."
},
{
"docid": "85373",
"title": "",
"text": "If you plan to keep this asset for ten years then you can take the deprecation of its cost over that time period. For simplicity lets treat that as 120 monthly payments. So at a purchase price of $60,000 you are committing around $500 per month not including vehicle maintenance. I typically allocate around 20 percent of the purchase price of my vehicles for future maintenance costs. Since you have the cash to purchase this outright you have an option not afforded to most people. This adds for additional consideration. Here is an example. You purchase a $60,000 car and put $10,000 down. You finance $50,000 at 2.84% over 60 months. Your total finance cost is $53,693 if you do not miss any payments. The question here is can you make more than $3,693 on the $50,000 that you would retain in this situation over a five year period? I know that I most certainly can and is an excellent example of why I finance my vehicles. Obviously this all goes out the window if you do not have the credit for top rates. I have also negotiated a vehicle maintenance plan with the dealership at the time of my vehicle purchases. Most dealerships offer this service, the key here is negotiating. On my last truck I was able to get an all inclusive maintenance policy for 72 months for 8% of the purchase price. Your mileage will vary with manufacturer and dealership. As described in the comments above it is never beneficial for an individual to lease. You end up paying more for the newer models. I consider that to be a lifestyle choice as it is most certainly not a sound financial decision."
},
{
"docid": "318676",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Village? Are you in the states? I am not saying start a car dealership, I am saying look for cars that are sold below the value they usually go for. This takes a bit of time and effort of looking at each car and seeing what they generally sell for. Blue book is a decent indicator, but do not go solely on that alone. Go to a car auction, and write down each car you can, judge each car, the mileage, and condition, and see what it goes for at auction. Then go to other areas and find other similar cars and see what they are sold for there. Build up a database of sorts, and the cars with the best margins, and preferably higher turnover, and get those. This is not a \"\"business\"\" per say, it is a way to make money and learn the market for a while. Once you get a good bit of general knowledge, and build up a lot more money, then you could likely start a car dealership. Depending on your area you will likely need a good 50k to get started, maybe more depending on insurance and lease agreements.\""
},
{
"docid": "545296",
"title": "",
"text": "The intention of making the charitable contributions tax deductible is to provide an economic incentive to contribute to organizations which tend to improve the general welfare of the community. Deductibility impacts government revenue generation, but has positive impacts that probably offset that loss by encouraging more giving by folks subject to high income tax -- particularly small business owners. Unless you own a home and have a mortgage you may not have enough deductions to get any financial benefit from charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are only deductible when your deductions exceed the standard deduction. For most people, charitable contributions are a way to support something that you care about, and the tax benefits are a secondary benefit, or a way to enhance their own giving."
},
{
"docid": "278727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think everything in your case is just simply missing one important rule of how credit works. Essentially, your MIL cannot get a loan. You can. You are making her a large loan that she cannot get for herself. That is all. That is the essence of what this deal is. It is not without interest - she makes a financial contribution toward your son, you get the deal in 2 years assuming she doesn't default (she will), etc. Imagine it this way: you are sitting in the dealership with the dealer and your MIL. She wants a loan to pay for the car. The dealership says, \"\"you are way not credit worthy.\"\" So your MIL says, \"\"why doesn't my son-in-law take out the loan instead?\"\" Now the dealership says, sure, that's fine. From the dealer's standpoint, every other part of your arrangement is irrelevant - boring, even. The only magic trick is in who takes the loan out, no other difference. You're letting your MIL pull a car out of her sleeve like a magician, and in taking the deal you're believing her. This sentence: I am pretty sure that the ex-MIL will not let me down (I've loaned her large sums of money before and she always promptly repaid). is everything. You're making a rather large bet that the things that can go wrong in two years - including any situation involving your wife's welfare - are rather miniscule. And furthermore, that the few times she's paid you back - that did NOT convince banks and dealer she is more creditworthy - justifies her good creditworthiness. Is the interest worth it? Do you really believe that your MIL needs to wring a car out of you before she would consider contributing to her grandson's well-being (which is, essentially, the interest)? But wait, it's NOT everything. Her daughter (my ex-wife) would drive it for 2 years and then turn the car over to our son. Even if your MIL is creditworthy, the woman you described as follows: Her daughter, though, is a loose cannon. Will be holding and returning the collateral in this deal. Things she can do include: So I'm arguing two points: Obviously my opinion on this is clear. I hope I did a decent job of explaining where the components of this deal (credit, interest, collateral) play out in the eyes of a dealer or bank, and get lost in the mechanics of the rules you worked out with your family.\""
},
{
"docid": "504432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\""
},
{
"docid": "374211",
"title": "",
"text": "The buying service your credit union uses is similar to the one my credit union uses. I have used their service several times. There is no direct cost to use the service, though the credit union as a whole might have a fee to join the service. I have used it 4 times over the decades. If you know what make and model you want to purchase, or at least have it narrowed down to just a few choices, you can get an exact price for that make, model, and options. You do this before negotiating a price. You are then issued a certificate. You have to go to a specific salesman at a specific dealership, but near a large city there will be several dealers to pick from. There is no negotiating at the dealership. You still have to deal with a trade in, and the financing option: dealer, credit union, or cash. But it is nice to not have to negotiate on the price. Of course there is nobody to stop you from using the price from the buying service as a goal when visiting a more conveniently located dealership, that is what I did last time. The first couple of times I used the standard credit union financing, and the last time I didn't need a loan. Even if you don't use the buying service, one way to pay for the car is to get the loan from the credit union, but get the rebate from the dealer. Many times if you get the low dealer financing you can't get the rebate. Doing it this way actually saves money. Speaking of rebates see how the buying service addresses them. The big national rebates were still honored during at least one of my purchases. So it turned out to be the buying service price minus $1,000. If your service worked like my experience, the cost to you was a little time to get the price, and a little time in a different dealer to verify that the price was good."
},
{
"docid": "417800",
"title": "",
"text": "\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \"\"bill of sale\"\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\""
},
{
"docid": "505467",
"title": "",
"text": "If everyone bought used cars, who would buy the new cars so that everyone else could buy them used? Rental car companies? Your rant expresses a misunderstanding of fundamental economics (as demand for used cars increases, so will prices) but economics is off-topic here, so let me explain why I bought a new car—that I am now in the 10th year of driving. When I bought the car I currently drive, I was single, I was working full-time, and I was going to school full-time. I bought a 2007 Toyota Corolla for about $16,500 cash out the door. I wanted a reliable car that was clean and attractive enough that I wouldn't be embarrassed in it if I took a girl out for dinner. I could have bought a much more expensive car, but I wanted to be real about myself and not give the wrong impression about my views on money. I've done all the maintenance, and the car is still very nice even after 105K miles. It will handle at least that many more miles barring any crashes. Could I have purchased a nice used car for less? Certainly, but because it was the last model year before a redesign, the dealer was clearly motivated to give me a good deal, so I didn't lose too much driving it off the lot. There are a lot of reasons why people buy new cars. I didn't want to look like a chump when out on a date. Real-estate agents often like to make a good impression as they are driving clients to see new homes. Some people can simply afford it and don't want to worry about what abuse a prior owner may have done. I don't feel defensive about my decision to buy a new car those years ago. The other car I've purchased in the last 10 years was a four year old used car, and it certainly does a good job for my wife who doesn't put too many miles on it. I will not rule out buying another new car in the future either. Some times the difference in price isn't significant enough that used is always the best choice."
},
{
"docid": "371720",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity."
},
{
"docid": "37327",
"title": "",
"text": "I was in a similar (but not quite as bad situation) a couple years ago, and I had a stroke of luck that helped me, but your friend might be able to force a similar situation. My parents refused to take out the huge parent loan (understandably so), but my dad made enough money that I wasn't eligible for much aid. My stroke of luck came when they got divorced; I could refile my FAFSA with only one parent (using my mom with very little income), my aid shot through the roof and nearly covered my undergrad (this happened in California, I don't know if this works in other states). My advice for your friend would be to take the 6 units/part time job option, but do what she can to earn enough to pay her own rent/food/other bills. I think the requirement for filing as an independent is that you supply >50% of your own income. It won't kick in right away, but for next school year this would end up getting her a lot more money from the state/federal governments. For me it was enough to cover my school, food, rent, gas, car payment, and still have a little left over. (I don't know if this is still possible, and I know it doesn't work for graduate school, or if it applies to every state. It might be an option worth pursuing though)"
},
{
"docid": "472973",
"title": "",
"text": "You're not going to like this answer. You might be able to get out of the car. You probably won't be able to get out of the loan. Option #1 - Sell the car privately (you'll get more in a private sale) and get a private loan for the difference between the sale price and what you owe. Option #2 - If you go to a dealership that advertises that they will take any trade no matter how much you owe, they will roll your balance, less your trade in value, into your new loan. So for example, Let's say you buy a car for and borrow $20,000. The dealership gives you $6,000 for your trade because that's what they do that leaves $9,000 on your loan and you will end up borrowing $29,000 to buy a $20,000 car. Dealerships can be surprisingly accommodating but a lot of car buyers don't understand the terms of what they're getting into. I actually knew someone a few years ago who left a dealership with a new car and couldn't tell you anything about the deal beyond her monthly payment. Option #3 - Hang on to the car and throw every extra penny at it to get the balance down on the loan until you can get it to the point where you can sell it, trade it in or refi it without putting out a big one time cash payment."
},
{
"docid": "290879",
"title": "",
"text": "Dealerships make a lot of money in the finance department. One of the thing they play upon is your emotional reaction of purchasing a new vehicle (new to you in this case). They perform all sorts of shenanigans, like adding undercoat, selling gap insurance, or extended warranties. They entice you with a promise of a lower interest rate, but really what they are trying to do is back you into a payment. So if you can fiance 20,000, but the car you are buying is 16,000, then they will try to move that figure up to the 20K mark. In your case it sounded like some borderline (at the least) illegal activity they used to fool you into paying more. It sounds like you regret this decision which puts you a step ahead of most. How many people brag about the extended warranty or gap insurance they got included in the sale? As mentioned in another answer the best bet is to go into the dealership with financing in place. Say you were able to get a 3% loan on 16K. The total interest would be ~1600. If you avoid the finance room, you might avoid their dubious add ons that would probably cost you more then the 1600 even if you can get 0%. If you are going to buy a car on time, my advice would be to not fill out a credit app at the dealership. The dealership people through a conniption fit, but hold your ground. If need be get up and walk out. They won't let you leave. One thing I must mention, is that one feels very wealthy without that monthly pain in the a$$ payment for a car. You may want to try and envision yourself without a car payment, and make steps to making that a reality for the rest of your life."
},
{
"docid": "270952",
"title": "",
"text": "My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing. A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle."
},
{
"docid": "464619",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I started a business a few years ago. At one point it wasn't going so well and my father \"\"loaned\"\" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship. Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments... Unfortunately thoughts like \"\"he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away\"\" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals. We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to. Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around. Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on. When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine. This \"\"cleared the air\"\" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc. Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children. Although I went about it an entirely different way. Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them. We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed. Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse... Given the current state of things I consider it money well \"\"spent\"\".\""
}
] |
5410 | Dealership made me the secondary owner to my own car | [
{
"docid": "507813",
"title": "",
"text": "Your best bet is to refinance the car in your own name only. Hopefully a year of making the payments has improved your credit score enough. If not, you can approach a loan officer at a credit union and make your case (that you haven't missed any payments, etc.). A new title should be sent to the new lien holder, and in that process, if your ex needs to sign any paperwork, it can be done while refinancing."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "495710",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Hi there, I'm a Tesla owner. I think, for the Model S and X segment currently buying cars, you're right. Environmentalism isn't the first and foremost thing in their mind. However, that isn't to say being environmentally conscious isn't a credit they should receive for their purchase, because other informing factors, like charging at home instead of needing to refuel, is a perk AND it reduces oil/gas usage. I didn't buy my car to \"\"lower my carbon footprint\"\", as buying an EV doesn't necessarily do so in the big picture. I do, however, LOVE the fact I can charge my car at home and never visit a gas station. Every day, I get in my car with a \"\"full tank\"\", and I'm one less paying customer at the pump. As far as a status symbol, for me, it's the opposite. I don't want a showy, iconic vehicle that people will gawk at me over. I'm fairly low key, I'd rather not have the attention. I just needed/wanted a car with great interior cargo space, but was an electric vehicle I could charge at home. The Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf, Fiat 500e, and other EV options didn't fit the bill for me. Also, and most importantly, I wanted a vehicle that's future proofed (at least for a few years) to offer full self driving capability the moment it was allowed. Tesla became the icon for offering attractive electric vehicles at a time when most available options looked phoned in. Remember what you said in your first post: \"\"$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?\"\" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the \"\"official prototype\"\" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple. I think, in the next few years, as more EV makers step up, what will differentiate the vehicles is the underlying tech in the car first and foremost, closely followed by design aesthetic. Tesla will retain buyers if they beat everyone to market with an available, fully self-driving capable vehicle, but they'll see some of that market shift away if other makers break in.\""
},
{
"docid": "318676",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Village? Are you in the states? I am not saying start a car dealership, I am saying look for cars that are sold below the value they usually go for. This takes a bit of time and effort of looking at each car and seeing what they generally sell for. Blue book is a decent indicator, but do not go solely on that alone. Go to a car auction, and write down each car you can, judge each car, the mileage, and condition, and see what it goes for at auction. Then go to other areas and find other similar cars and see what they are sold for there. Build up a database of sorts, and the cars with the best margins, and preferably higher turnover, and get those. This is not a \"\"business\"\" per say, it is a way to make money and learn the market for a while. Once you get a good bit of general knowledge, and build up a lot more money, then you could likely start a car dealership. Depending on your area you will likely need a good 50k to get started, maybe more depending on insurance and lease agreements.\""
},
{
"docid": "212231",
"title": "",
"text": "It is the best company of business valuation services. This expert has been working in the Automotive dealership expert witness industry for long years. The Kirk Kleckner offers an exceptional form of the fee, which includes enterprise valuation, car valuation, and professional Automotive dealership expert witness. Deals happening at automobile dealerships can be inspired via the monetary matters of the auto commercial enterprise and in addition singular automobile examinations."
},
{
"docid": "285033",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\""
},
{
"docid": "36251",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer \"\"owns\"\" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story.\""
},
{
"docid": "161035",
"title": "",
"text": "Seeing stuff like this makes me wish I took videos at the dealerships I worked as a mechanic for. This justifies my experiences, dealerships and the manufacturers are thieves and crooks. I was a mechanic, I have a moral compass, I am no longer a mechanic."
},
{
"docid": "235925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have a very simple rule. For anything other than trivial purchases (a small fraction of my monthly income), the only final decision I will make in the presence of a salesperson is \"\"No\"\". After I have the terms nailed down, and still feel that I am likely to buy the item, I leave the store, car dealership etc., and think about it by myself. Often, I go to a mall coffee shop to do the thinking. If it is really big, I sleep on it and make my decision the next day. Once I have made my decision, I inform the salesperson. If the decision is \"\"No\"\" I do not discuss my reasons - that gives them an overcome-the-objection lever. I just tell them I have decided not to buy the item, which is all they need to know.\""
},
{
"docid": "495977",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an \"\"extended warranty\"\" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "252859",
"title": "",
"text": "Considering I'm putting 30% down and having my father cosign is there any chance I would be turned down for a loan on a $100k car? According to BankRate, the average credit score needed to buy a new car is 714, but they also show average interest rates at 6.39% for new-car loans to people with credit scores in the 601-660 range. High income certainly helps offset credit score to some extent. Not every bank/dealership does things the same way. Being self-employed you'd most likely be required to show 2 years of tax returns, and they'd use those as a basis for your income rather than whatever you have made recently. If using a co-signer, their income matters. Another key factor is debt to income ratio, if too much of someone's income is already spoken for by other debts a lender will shy away. So, yes, there's a chance, given all the information we don't know and the variability with lender policies, that you could be turned down for a car loan. How should I go about this? If you're set on pursuing the car loan, just go talk to some lenders. You'll want to shop around for a good rate anyway, so no need to speculate just go find out. Include the dealership as a potential financing option, they can have great rates. Personally, I'd get a much cheaper car. Your insurance premium on a 100k car will be quite high due to your age. You might be rightly confident in your earning potential, but nothing is guaranteed, situations can change wildly in short order. A new car is not a good investment or a value-retaining asset, so why bother going into debt for one if you don't have to? If you buy something in cash now, you could upgrade in a few years without financing if your earning prediction holds and would save quite a bit in car insurance and interest over the years between."
},
{
"docid": "270952",
"title": "",
"text": "My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing. A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle."
},
{
"docid": "433066",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consumer Reports offers a service that can tell you detailed actual cost to a dealer for a specific model and accessories -- real cost after rebates, not just invoice price. It costs a bit to order these reports, but if you are serious about buying a new car they are a highly recommended tool -- cu is independent and will give you the best info available, and simply walking into the dealership with the report in your hand can save huge amounts of negotiating. \"\"If you can give it to me for $500 over the real price, as shown here, I'll sign now.\"\" Of course, standard advice is that it's usually better to buy a recent-model used car. I believe cu has other reports that can help you determine what a fair price is in that case, but usually I just bring it to a trusted garage and pay them to tell me exactly how much work it needs and whether they think it's worth the asking price.\""
},
{
"docid": "124258",
"title": "",
"text": "I still think it will be rather difficult. Best bet is to call around to the five or so closest dealers and express you are considering the car contingent on price (NOT PAYMENT). Ask for them to send you their best out-the-door price on a base model. Then when you get quotes from each of them, shop the lowest price around. Usually dealers will budge a few hundred bucks to beat other dealers. But a 2018 STI will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate a few grand under MSRP. Understand that the people that buy this car are not doing so because it is a great bargain. So dealers can usually push this car at or near MSRP. Lastly, do not set foot in a dealership until you have a firm out-the-door price. They will play sales tricks until you give up on negotiation and will pay anything just to get out of there. The only time you should go to the location is to sign papers and drive away with the car. Do not worry about being nice and congenial with the salesperson. This advice got me my current vehicle at about 15% below the lowest True Car estimate. I don't claim this is the best advice out there but it works."
},
{
"docid": "56598",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What do you \"\"better equipment than necessary\"\"? If I want a car that runs 300 miles on a battery charge, I don't want to put a battery that actually runs for 400 miles. The only purpose of this \"\"trick\"\" by Tesla is to charge more money from consumers for what they already own and paid for. > The side effect is longer battery life and the option to upgrade without needing service. This my problem and choice as the car owner: if I ignore the warning from the car that I over-taxing the battery and will shorten it's life, then it's my choice. And \"\"upgrade without service\"\" is ridiculous. It better to say \"\"unlocking existing features in the car you already own\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "59766",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> If you're a few decades older, your generation is mostly to blame for this reversal of fortunes in the US. Absolutely. I've personally worked pretty damn hard to do the right thing - I've never owned a car, I recycle, compost, blah blah, but when it comes down to it it was my contemporaries that did us in. > 1969 was the peak of American culture. > Not since 1969 have more cars been sold in the US Wait, how is \"\"selling more cars\"\" equivalent to the \"\"peak of culture\"\"? I fail to agree that American culture reached a peak 40 years ago. Frankly, I think I'd be pretty bored if I were thrown back to 1969, even though it seemed pretty exciting at the time. I do think the last ten years of culture have been a bit lame, I've been very surprised that we haven't had an outpouring of intense art and music in response to 9/11 and the impending collapse, I find I keep playing the Clash for want of any contemporary political music that moves me - but there's tons of great things out there. (EDIT: A great example: I just saw [this movie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440266/) a few days ago, and it simply blew my mind - it made me rethink choreography, and it also made me happy that Germany, a social Democracy, spends money on amazing things like this.)\""
},
{
"docid": "555099",
"title": "",
"text": "It sounds like your father got a loan and you are making the payments. If your name and SSN are not on the loan then you are not getting credit for making the payments your father is. So it will not affect your credit. If you are on the loan as a secondary borrower it will affect your credit but not substantially on the positive but could affect it substantially on the negative side. Since your father is named as the primary borrower you will probably need to talk with him about it first. If this is a mistake the 2 of you will need to work together with the bank to get it corrected. Since your father is currently listed first the bank is probably going to be unable(even if they are willing) to make a change to the loan now with out his explicit permission. In addition if the loan is in your fathers name, if it is a vehicle loan, then the car is most likely in your fathers name as well. Most states require that the primary signatory on a vehicle loan also be the primary owner on the title to the vehicle. If your fathers name is the primary name on the title then you would have to retitle the car to refinance in your name."
},
{
"docid": "494323",
"title": "",
"text": "\"this is a bit unusual, but not unheard of. i have known more than one car whose owner was not its driver. besides the obvious risk that the legal owner of the car will repossess it, this seems fairly safe. your insurance should cover any financial liability that you incur during an accident. even if the car is repossessed by the owner, you are only out the registration fees. i would suggest you avoid looking this gift horse in the grill. her father on the other hand might be in for some drama and financial mess if he has a falling-out with his \"\"friend\"\". this arrangement reminds me of divorces where one spouse owns the car, but the other drives it and pays the loan. usually, when the relationship goes south, one spouse is forced to sell the car at a loss.\""
},
{
"docid": "504432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\""
},
{
"docid": "520674",
"title": "",
"text": "Since no one else answered this part of your question yet: Checking your own credit score or report will not affect it in any way. It only hurts you when someone looks it up to run a credit check at your request for the purpose of possibly getting a loan, for example a car dealership. This only hurts it a tiny bit, and is not worth worrying about unless you are going to 20 different car dealerships who each do a check. However, it is a good idea not to let them run your credit until you are seriously ready to buy a car. In fact, it is better to just get financing somewhere else and not let them run it at all."
},
{
"docid": "86406",
"title": "",
"text": "No you can't buy direct from Toyota. Largely because of many states' laws (assuming you're in the US) requiring a dealer relationship for car purchasing, read about Tesla's struggles with direct to customer sales. Secondly because Toyota corporate simply isn't set up to sell a car directly to a customer. I know there are services that help people through the buying process. If you're finding Toyota dealerships to be this difficult you may consider just buying something from someone who wants to sell to you. If the buying process is this difficult imagine the service relationship. Edit: Additionally, it's important to remember when financing a car that there are essentially two transactions taking place. First you're negotiating the price of the car. Then you negotiate the price of the money (the interest rate). The money does not need to come from the dealership, you can secure your financing rate from a separate bank or local credit union. You should definitely pursue alternate financing if they're quoting you 7.99% with a FICO of 710. But don't tell the dealership you've already got your financing lined up until you're happy with the price of the car."
}
] |
5410 | Dealership made me the secondary owner to my own car | [
{
"docid": "368802",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are co-signer on his car loan. You have no ownership (unless the car is titled in both names). One option (not the best, see below) is to buy the car from him. Arrange your own financing (take over his loan or get a loan of your own to pay him for the car). The bank(s) will help you take care of getting the title into your name. And the bank holding the note will hold the title as well. Best advice is to get with him, sell the car. Take any money left after paying off the loan and use it to buy (cash purchase, not finance) a reliable, efficient, used car -- if you truly need a car at all. If you can get to work by walking, bicycling or public transit, you can save thousands per year, and perhaps use that money to start you down the road to \"\"financial independence\"\". Take a couple of hours and research this. In the US, we tend to view cars as necessary, but this is not always true. (Actually, it's true less than half the time.) Even if you cannot, or choose not to, live within bicycle distance of work, you can still reduce your commuting cost by not financing, and by driving a fuel efficient vehicle. Ask yourself, \"\"Would you give up your expensive vehicle if it meant retiring years earlier?\"\" Maybe as many as ten years earlier.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "181032",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The new Tesla car with exchangeable battery means that the battery is not owned by you. How can the batteries owned (and paid) by you if every time you exchange them with batteries of unknown past, owners and quality? If you want to insist to own your batteries and charge them at home, then, yes, you will have to pay for your set of batteries, but then why would you exchange YOUR batteries for another set with unknown past and owners? Let me explain it in a different way: Nobody pays their share of the cost of the expensive Electric infrastructure needed to supply their home with electricity. You just pay as you consume. Yes, part of what you pay is to cover the costs of the infrastructure, but big consumers of electricity (factories and businesses) covered much more of that than the individual home owner. Yes, electric car batteries are expensive but you don't need to pay for them if the arrangement is \"\"pay as you go\"\". With conventional car, would you like to pay $1000s of Dollars for huge tank and fill it with gas, so you don't have to \"\"pay as you go\"\"? Also, if we exchange batteries as we go, we don't need such expensive batteries. They can be cheaper (not cheapest) batteries that have less range.\""
},
{
"docid": "295355",
"title": "",
"text": "It is a legal issue for two reasons. In the United States if both names were on the title both people would have had to sign the paperwork in order to transfer the title. If the car was collateral for the loan, then the bank would have had to be involved in the transaction. The portion of the check need to repay the loan would have had to have been made out to the bank. If the car was sold to a dealership, then paperwork must have been forged. If the car was sold to a person then it is possible that they were too naive to know what paperwork was required, but it is likely still fraud. You need legal advice to protect your money, and your credit score. They should also be able to tell you who needs to be contacted: DMV, the police, the dealership, the bank."
},
{
"docid": "546831",
"title": "",
"text": "Approximately 25% of all cars sold last year were leased, which is the highest on record. When you are leasing you don't own the car, instead you are basically renting it for a fixed term, and turning it back to the dealership. It is very cost effective, because the manufacturers have a keen interest in making lots of cars. They are often subsidizing the lease by giving incentives to the dealer. They are gambling on the future value of their cars. They can lose on that gamble. The car business has turned into a financial nightmare for the car companies; they have huge development costs as the cars become more like mobile computing platforms loaded with sensors, and software that is constantly changing. They can't hold a model for 20 years like Mercedes was able to do in the past. Now they have to constantly update their products. The only way to survive as a car maker is to pump out volume, and the leasing programs, which are quietly being underwritten by the manufacturers help them increase the production quantities, which helps lower the fixed development costs. If only the defense contractors could do this! they are stuck spending billions to build 20 planes, and so each one has a staggering price tag. In the future, the car companies that will survive are those that have terrific credit, and low borrowing costs. That means Japanese and Germans will own the car business entirely in the end, and countries with higher borrowing costs (like America and Brasil) will not be competitive. Luckily Ford is so frugal, due to the lingering spirit of its founder, that they can hold out. One thing strongly in favor of leasing is that you have zero maintenance costs typically. The repair risk is significant in luxury cars. When you buy a 10 year old BMW, and when the tranny goes, it costs a fortune. Having a superb car for 30 months for a few hundred bucks a month is something a lot of people enjoy doing. Who can blame them? you spend an hour or 2 a day in your car, and why not live in a nice place?"
},
{
"docid": "446001",
"title": "",
"text": "My suggestion would be to keep it. The value of a new car is that you get to drive it around when it's still new and shiny, and that you know its history. If you maintain it in good condition, both mechanically and cosmetically, then you can have both of those benefits for the life of the car. Your question merges the old car sale and new car purchase transactions together, but that's not correct. The value of your 2010 car has no relationship to the value of any new car you might buy, except incidentally through the market forces that act on each. The car dealership is likely to be skilled at making you feel like your most important criteria are satisfied, but they will try to construct the deal to maximize the money you pay them while making you feel like you're the one maximizing your value. Also note that the dealership cannot give you maximum value for your car, because it costs them money to sell it and they take all the risk. Some of the difference between typical direct-sale and trade-in prices is the commission you are paying them to both sell it for you and absorb the risks in the transaction."
},
{
"docid": "555581",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it is possible for you to refinance your existing auto loan, and so long as you can get the loan on more favorable terms (e.g.: lower interest rate), it is absolutely a smart thing to do. In fact, you would be well advised to do so as soon as possible if the car was a new car, if you refinance a NEW car soon enough you will likely still be able to get new car interest rates. Even if it is a pre-owned vehicle you shouldn't wait too long, since your car will only depreciate in value. You will almost certainly get more favorable terms from any bank or credit union directly then you would when you go through the dealership, because the dealership is allowed to mark-up your interest rate several percentage points as profit for themselves. Your best bet would be to go to a local credit union, their rates tend to be most competitive since they are \"\"owned\"\" by their members.\""
},
{
"docid": "313935",
"title": "",
"text": "I would imagine that it goes beyond purpose and also addresses the demographic as a poor credit risk. Those seeking a post secondary education are a poor credit risk. They are at the beginning of their careers so tend to have low income, a short credit history, and a very short time of managing money on their own. Also many don't know how to work. This later fact, to me, is a great predictor of financial success. Reading into the financial data surrounding student loans, it pretty easy to see that this demographic makes poor money decisions. I live near a state university. A large percentage of students drive late model luxury cars, frequent expensive bars and restaurants, and wear pretty nice clothes. They also graduate with, on average 60K in student loans. Keep in mind a 4 year degree could be had for about 30K and could be paid for working a part time job. And that, to me, is the wisdom in bank's decision. Sure they will loan you all the money you want with a government guarantee. However, once that disappears they will not you money for unnecessary purposes."
},
{
"docid": "351195",
"title": "",
"text": "This is inside the special economic zone. There are lots of wholly owned European/US companies that do the same (though no car maker as of yet). This means Tesla has to pay the same import tariff as if the car was build in the US. They also have to pay the US/EU import tariff if they ship it back to the US/EU from there. Super strange arrangement if you ask me. China can only win with these rules. Either the product is made in China and there is 25% tariff or the product is made in China and some Chinese company owns 50% of it."
},
{
"docid": "120279",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for. For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told \"\"You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?\"\", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options. The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy. On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service. While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy. Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales. Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out. Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer. One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back. Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop. I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business. As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment. I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying. I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership. I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list. I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees. I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not. I told him, \"\"so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes\"\" but that logic did not register with him. Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me. I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation.\""
},
{
"docid": "278727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think everything in your case is just simply missing one important rule of how credit works. Essentially, your MIL cannot get a loan. You can. You are making her a large loan that she cannot get for herself. That is all. That is the essence of what this deal is. It is not without interest - she makes a financial contribution toward your son, you get the deal in 2 years assuming she doesn't default (she will), etc. Imagine it this way: you are sitting in the dealership with the dealer and your MIL. She wants a loan to pay for the car. The dealership says, \"\"you are way not credit worthy.\"\" So your MIL says, \"\"why doesn't my son-in-law take out the loan instead?\"\" Now the dealership says, sure, that's fine. From the dealer's standpoint, every other part of your arrangement is irrelevant - boring, even. The only magic trick is in who takes the loan out, no other difference. You're letting your MIL pull a car out of her sleeve like a magician, and in taking the deal you're believing her. This sentence: I am pretty sure that the ex-MIL will not let me down (I've loaned her large sums of money before and she always promptly repaid). is everything. You're making a rather large bet that the things that can go wrong in two years - including any situation involving your wife's welfare - are rather miniscule. And furthermore, that the few times she's paid you back - that did NOT convince banks and dealer she is more creditworthy - justifies her good creditworthiness. Is the interest worth it? Do you really believe that your MIL needs to wring a car out of you before she would consider contributing to her grandson's well-being (which is, essentially, the interest)? But wait, it's NOT everything. Her daughter (my ex-wife) would drive it for 2 years and then turn the car over to our son. Even if your MIL is creditworthy, the woman you described as follows: Her daughter, though, is a loose cannon. Will be holding and returning the collateral in this deal. Things she can do include: So I'm arguing two points: Obviously my opinion on this is clear. I hope I did a decent job of explaining where the components of this deal (credit, interest, collateral) play out in the eyes of a dealer or bank, and get lost in the mechanics of the rules you worked out with your family.\""
},
{
"docid": "41023",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\""
},
{
"docid": "371720",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity."
},
{
"docid": "64103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I took @littleadv 's recommendation that online apps only ask for citizenship due to post-9/11 legislation. I applied to 2 banks in person (one big, one small), and at the dealership. None of my in-person applications ever touched on the issue of citizenship. I even applied in person at the same bank that insta-rejected me online, and told them up front, \"\"I applied online but you rejected me because I'm not a permanent resident.\"\" The banker nodded, said \"\"that shouldn't matter here\"\", and continued processing my application. I did find it very hard to get a loan. I have a credit score in the \"\"excellent\"\" range, but have only 1 open credit card (for 5 years). Apparently, most lenders want to see more open credit before writing an auto loan. The big bank said outright \"\"We want to see 3-5 credit cards open\"\". However, the dealership did find a bank willing to extend me a loan. So: The most reliable way for a non-permanent resident alien to get an auto loan in the US is to avoid online applications. Also, if possible, establish a wide credit history before you try.\""
},
{
"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": "63042",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he \"\"should\"\" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience. Buying New According to Edmunds and BIGResearch, only a relatively small number of people are ever in the market for a new car at a given point in time. While you do pay quite a bit more to own a brand new car instead of the same car that is 2-3 years old, there are several reasons I'm aware of why people buy new cars: Number 4 is probably the biggest reason, and many people are willing to pay for the certainty of knowing that the miles are correct, the parts are new, the car is in good working condition, etc. Additionally, some makes of cars have much higher resale values than others (such as Hondas), meaning that there isn't as large of a drop in price between a new car and a used car. Many people consider buying a new car the best way to ensure they get the best reliability since they know the initial condition of the car and can care for it meticulously from that point on. This can especially make sense when the buyer intends to keep the car for the like of the car as the buyer will then benefit from having no car payments once it is paid off. Buying Used Buying a used car is the most affordable option, but for a given quality of car the reliability can be a significant potential pitfall. It can be very difficult for a non-professional to tell whether they are getting a good value. Additionally, it is hard for an owner who wants to sell a used car in excellent condition to get the true value of the car, and much easier for an unscrupulous seller to to get the market price by selling to an unaware buyer (the \"\"lemons\"\" problem in economics). You could buy an inspected car with a limited warranty from a retail seller like CarMax or a dealership, but you often pay a significant premium that cancels out much of the biggest reason to buy used - saving money. However, there is an opportunity to save money when buying used if you're willing to compromise on the condition of the car (if you don't care whether a car has hail damage, for example), or if you are able to wait until you find a motivated/distressed seller who needs to sell quickly and is willing to sell at a discount. If cost is your primary priority, buying a used car is likely the best option, but I would recommend the following in all circumstances: If the seller isn't willing to offer both of these, I would walk away. When buying used, you will also need to consider maintenance, which will vary significantly based on the make and model of the car as well as the condition, which is another risk you need to be willing to take on if you choose to buy used.\""
},
{
"docid": "443134",
"title": "",
"text": "Go to your local bank or credit union before talking to a dealership. Ask them if putting both names on the loan makes a difference regarding rates and maximum loan you qualify for. Ask them to run the loan application both ways. Having both names on the loan helps build the credit of the spouse that has a lower score. You may find that both incomes are needed for a car loan if the couple has a mortgage or other joint obligations. The lender will treat the entire mortgage payment or rent payment as a liability against the person applying for the loan, they won't split the housing payment in half if only one name will be on the car loan. Therefore sometimes the 2nd persons income is needed even if their credit is not as good. That additional income without a significant increase in liabilities can make a huge difference regarding the loan they can qualify for. Once the car is in your possession, it doesn't matter who drives it. In general the insurance company will put both spouses as authorized drivers. Note: it is almost always better to ask your bank or credit union about a car loan before going to the dealership. That gives you a solid data point regarding a loan, and removes a major complexity to the negotiations at the dealership."
},
{
"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": "235925",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have a very simple rule. For anything other than trivial purchases (a small fraction of my monthly income), the only final decision I will make in the presence of a salesperson is \"\"No\"\". After I have the terms nailed down, and still feel that I am likely to buy the item, I leave the store, car dealership etc., and think about it by myself. Often, I go to a mall coffee shop to do the thinking. If it is really big, I sleep on it and make my decision the next day. Once I have made my decision, I inform the salesperson. If the decision is \"\"No\"\" I do not discuss my reasons - that gives them an overcome-the-objection lever. I just tell them I have decided not to buy the item, which is all they need to know.\""
},
{
"docid": "56598",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What do you \"\"better equipment than necessary\"\"? If I want a car that runs 300 miles on a battery charge, I don't want to put a battery that actually runs for 400 miles. The only purpose of this \"\"trick\"\" by Tesla is to charge more money from consumers for what they already own and paid for. > The side effect is longer battery life and the option to upgrade without needing service. This my problem and choice as the car owner: if I ignore the warning from the car that I over-taxing the battery and will shorten it's life, then it's my choice. And \"\"upgrade without service\"\" is ridiculous. It better to say \"\"unlocking existing features in the car you already own\"\".\""
},
{
"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.\""
}
] |
5422 | What are some good books for learning stocks, bonds, derivatives e.t.c for beginner with a math background? | [
{
"docid": "273906",
"title": "",
"text": "Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "255390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"UCLA is not a bad place to be school wise. You will be pretty much limited to applying to the LA and possibly SF offices of any BB bank or relevant boutiques/MMs. But for those LA positions in particular, you will get a fair look. So your institution is respected. Your experience also seems to be decent, especially considering you spent time at a community college. It all matters how you market it. Be humble but don't sell yourself short. Don't claim you founded Yahoo, but also give an honest view of what you did. You can be proud of founding a distribution company and learning the business practices that go hand in hand with that. Both on your resume and in any interviews you may have, discuss how your experiences in that role will help you be a better intern and in the future a better analyst. Mostly intangibles, skills you learned, etc. The same goes for the other position, although the wealth management position probably has more applicable skills. So don't sell yourself too short in that department. Just lend an appropriate level of importance to the positions you've held; don't overstate your positions but also give yourself credit for what you've learned and what you've done. As far as your performance at UCLA so far and GPA, that might be a concern, but I think you can overcome it with enough work on your part during recruiting. I assumed your story from high school through community college and to UCLA is a fairly challenging one. It likely involved some financial hardships and a good deal of adversity. Most importantly, it probably took a lot of perseverance and hard work on your part to get to where you are now. If you can amply convey that during interviews without sounding like a martyr, you can likely overcome any downside to not having a GPA. Clearly you were able to get to UCLA from a tough starting point, which demonstrates the combination of hard work and intelligence that a GPA is meant to convey and which banks look for in applicants. Additionally, interviews occur in January so you will have one semester's worth of work to show for it by then and when interviews come around you'll be able to conjoin the story of your journey to UCLA to your first semester GPA to lend some credibility to your historical successes. Now, a lot of what I've said is contingent on you getting to an interview. Before that stage, it is hard to sell the merits of your alternative path to UCLA and to the interview on paper. You have the cover letter to make brief mention of those things, but the cover letter is far too short a medium through which to convey the entire story. So, getting yourself into the interview is the most important step you have to take at this point. Once you get your foot in the door and get a few first rounds, you'll be able to let your salesmanship shine and show them the merits of the path you've travelled. An important step of getting the interview will be networking. Everyone on here says \"\"just go network\"\" which is really vague and doesn't help anyone, especially because it is the most heinous of all collegiate finance buzzwords. You should contact specifically two groups of people: alumni working in the banks you are interested in apply for AND the bank HR representatives for your school. You ought to talk to the UCLA career services people as soon as you can and get names of UCLA graduates who work at the banks you're interested in. Career services also ought to have the names of the relevant HR representatives. Both the employees at these banks and the HR recruiters will have an important voice in who gets interviews, so make sure you talk to both of them. You should be inquisitive and ask about the bank and the experiences those you talk to have had, but you can also try to creatively weave in details about your story. I.e., when talking to someone you could bring up concerns about getting looked at because of your background and then ask whoever you're speaking with WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OVERCOME THAT. It should always be phrased as a question, so as to avoid seeming as if you're trying to sell yourself or brag during any informational calls. The purpose of the calls should be to talk about the bank and the job, so try as best you can to work in limited mention of yourself unless specifically asked and focus the discussion on the employee/recruiter and not yourself. You should also work to learn all the finance information you'll need for the job. Being that you have a nontraditional finance background and limited academic credentials, you will be asked extensive financial information questions if not during any informational calls definitely during first round interviews. Your knowledge of and commitment to a financial job is uncertain due to your academic background, so people will ask you basic to slightly more advanced financial analysis questions to see where your competency is at. Study up in the vault guide, with a particular focus on the fields you will be applying for. Understand DCF, LBO, M&A accretion-dilution, and financial statement analysis primarily (for IB internships). Learn specifics for other roles (Equity research may require more equity specific stuff, cap markets will be similar to IB as listed above, S&T will be less specific prep and more bainteasers/fast math). Prepare a stock pitch of some sort as well in case they ask you for one, and pick something obscure-ish so that it won't be too closely scrutinized. Stock pitch will come up randomly in interviews and specifically if you apply to equity research. In that same vain of thought, you should also think a bit about what group you want to apply to at these banks. Its good you have an interest in finance and in banking, but there are a lot of facets to the banking industry which you could pursue (traditional investment banking, capital markets, sales and trading, equity research, asset management, to name a few). Some are easier to wedge you way into, others harder (I have them listed in rough order of difficulty from hardest to easiest above). You can usually apply to a couple of different groups at each bank, so take advantage of that and definitely apply to multiple groups, talk to multiple groups, network with multiple groups and try to spread yourself around and get as many interviews as possible. TL;DR: you've got a decent product for sale here, but you'll need to polish up you pitch and learn financial skills to back up the story and prove you're competent and serious to an interviewers. While you do that, reach out to UCLA alumni in the banking industry and the HR recruiters for the banks to get your name in front of people and work toward securing a first round interview. Networking in this way is going to be the most important part of recruitment for you over the next 3-5 months.\""
},
{
"docid": "43397",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Fully half of the universe is making mediocre money, and no one talks about them. All anyone ever speaks of is CEO's and fund managers printing fucking billz. No shit. Just like most people with computer degrees, and in statistics, and engineering. But for some reason only finance has these problems? >Literally anything else. Programming is better, statistics is better, engineering is better. Fuck - go learn a trade. Even ignoring the outsized pay they are receiving, you can typically work for yourself, and you actually create shit The millions of consulting and banking employees are humored that you think it'd be better for them to plunge toilets. But at least you admit they're paid better and you just don't \"\"like\"\" the field. >AND you dont have to spend 100K (SEC numbers) on a fucking degree. 100k? Mine was <10. Most people's are in the SEC outside of Vandy and the morons who are out of state. They're some of the the best value in the country, given you actually get good grades and get a real job. To summarize, you've done nothing but rant about how much you don't like the field, admitted they make a lot more, provided no real rationale why someone should not pursue this degree/field, and your suggestion is to be a Carpenter instead. Just for more background, I'm a math/statistics major, one of your preferred options. Yea, get the fuck out of here.\""
},
{
"docid": "151203",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in."
},
{
"docid": "259081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\""
},
{
"docid": "540527",
"title": "",
"text": "TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income."
},
{
"docid": "302808",
"title": "",
"text": "If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land."
},
{
"docid": "66107",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Definitely depends on the field. I work in derivatives (but not on the pure quant side, though), and that's one of the fields that tends to hire the most mathsy guys. Basically involves applying a lot of stochastic calculus and probabilistic concepts to practical pricing problems. If you want a nice little application from a math perspective (but not necessarily practical), check out \"\"A Closed-Form Solution for Options with Stochastic Volatility\"\" by Heston (1992). Should give a decent idea of how typically the problem solving process works in derivative-land: start with a practical problem relating to a probabilistic/modelling concept (eg implied distribution of expected returns) -> apply some math -> come up with some sort of solution. *edit: clarification 1st paragraph\""
},
{
"docid": "90555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're a good candidate in terms of all the usual metrics then it will really come down to selling yourself to any potential advisers. Remember that in PhD admissions individual professors are really making the admissions decisions. Also, as you said you're from an econ background.... Unsurprisingly, mathematical finance is going to be pretty \"\"mathy.\"\" If you haven't had courses in real analysis, differential equations, Fourier analysis, and statistics you may want to brush up on those subjects. I say this because I am doing a PhD minor operations research (coming from a mechanical engineering background) and I have been overwhelmed at times by the level of technical rigor that they take in these courses relative to my \"\"normal\"\" engineering math courses. I would have been well served studying some real analysis before taking stochastic calculus, for instance.\""
},
{
"docid": "25753",
"title": "",
"text": "How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds). Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation."
},
{
"docid": "130705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You probably have enough math to satisfy a program as an incoming student. However, GMAT will matter a lot. The Ivys and their equivalents are going to have more applicants with perfect gmats and higher math backgrounds than they can take. If you can't distinguish yourself with connections from well published professors who can write good letters for you, then they're probably out of reach. Which means almost surely that you won't get a job at an ivy or equivalent as they are pretty incestuous. Basically, if you go on the market without a top tier publication before you go out, or without a huge endorsement from a big name, your best outcome is to land at a school that is the same level as the one from which you receive your degree. And you had better have at least 1 decent pub or R&R, or a presentation at a top conference with a good pipeline to hope for that. More likely outcome is you have a good job market paper, decent pipeline, maybe a few conference presentations, but no pub or R&R, in which case the most likely outcome for you is a step down from the tier of school you were at. So if you were at a flagship state program, then you will end up in the second tier state programs. The worse your portfolio on the market the farther you fall. So if your goal is a flagship state program, then you need to be aiming as high as absolutely possible. And the chances of getting into those programs are progressively smaller the higher you shoot. The flagship state schools (like UT) and the Ivy/equivalents (like Harvard/Berkley etc.) will get hundreds if not thousands of applicants. Ones with backgrounds in working finance or econ, or worse I had two physics phd holders start in my cohort with me (so you have no chance to compete with that kind of math and programming experience), perfect gmats/gres, and great recommendations. It is very hard, but you can't win if you don't play I suppose. I would wager that the average number of applications to programs sent by applicants is around 50, so why not aim a few of those applications high and see if anything sticks. Computer language proficiency is a good thing to highlight, but won't win you any big awards. By the time you get out of your first year, every student should have proficiency in either Stata/R/Sas and have some python/perl/c# etc, depending on what area of research you go for. So you have a head start, but not for long. Your best shot to improve your chances are good recommendations from professors you know that are research active and big names in their sub-fields and in the finance field as a whole. Next up would be to have an active interest in a research area, and be able to discuss/write about WHY you want to research that area. Don't just think about it, go look up papers that do that sort of research and see what they do and how they do it. So that you will know the limitations of that sort of research. When I interview a prospective student and they say \"\"I am interested in international finance research\"\" or any other sort of general field, I know they haven't got a clue what they're interested in. Which puts them behind again.\""
},
{
"docid": "334571",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am sorry to hear that. Well, finance is a VERY large field encompassing decades upon decades of research, and thousands of pages of research. This question is usually a difficult one to answer simply because of the scope. My usual answer to people is to browse around this sub and the internet and learn from that, and then for specific questions to ask. For your purposes, take a look at investopedia.com. While here it's an \"\"okay\"\" source, for a beginner I think it's a good place to start. Is there any specific thing you have a question about now? I know you mentioned the Big Short and some other things. Just keep in mind anything coming from Hollywood will be *extremely* biased.\""
},
{
"docid": "350850",
"title": "",
"text": "If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear. In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative."
},
{
"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": "526664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\""
},
{
"docid": "595625",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Dividends are one way to discriminate between companies to invest in. In the best of all worlds, your investment criteria is simple: \"\"invest in whatever makes me the most money on the timeline I want to have it.\"\" If you just follow that one golden rule, your future financial needs will be taken care of! Oh... you're not 100% proof positive certain which investment is best for you? Good. You're mortal. None of us magically know the best investment for us. We wing it, based on what information we can glean. For instance, we know that bonds tend to be \"\"safer\"\" than stocks, but with a lower return, so if something calls itself a bond, we treat it differently than we treat a stock. So what sorts of information do we have? Well, think of the stock market linguistically. A dividend is one way for a company to communicate with their stockholders in the best way possible: their pocketbooks. There's some generally agreed upon behaviors dividends have (such as they don't go down without some good reason for it, like a global recession or a plan to acquire another company that is well-accepted by the stockholders). If a company starts to talk in this language, people expect them to behave a certain way. If they don't, the stock gets blacklisted fast. A dividend itself isn't a big deal, but a dividend which isn't shunned by a lot of smart investors... that can be a big deal. A dividend is a \"\"promise\"\" (which can be broken, of course) to cash out some of the company's profits to its shareholders. Its probably one of the older tools out there (\"\"you give investors a share of the profits\"\" is pretty tried and true). It worked for many types of companies. If you see a dividend, especially one which has been reliable for many years, you can presume something about the type of company they are. Other companies find dividend is a poor tool to accomplish their goals. That doesn't mean they're better or worse, simply different. They're approaching the problem differently. Is that kind of different the kind you want in your books? Maybe. Companies which aren't choosing to commit a portion of their profits to shareholders are typically playing a more aggressive game. Are you comfortable that you can keep up with how they're using your money and make sure its in your interests? It can be harder in these companies where you simply hold a piece of paper and never get anything from them again.\""
},
{
"docid": "588153",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!"
},
{
"docid": "444531",
"title": "",
"text": "It's a debt derivative. Credit default swaps are contracts drawn up on a specific issue of a bond (in the case of single-name), or on a basket/index of a class of bonds (in the case of credit default index swaps/CDX). When it comes to derivatives you would have to look at the underlying instrument. For example, options on AAPL common stock are equity derivatives. Forwards on corn or wheat are commodity derivatives. Interest rate swaps where the floating leg is pegged to LIBOR are debt/rates derivatives."
},
{
"docid": "163197",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like."
},
{
"docid": "165294",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I thought Derivatives Markets by Robert McDonald was a solid textbook when I used it for an SOA exam and a 4th year financial mathematics course. For a decent intro to interest rates, annuities, bonds etc I thought \"\"The Theory of Interest\"\" by Stephen Kellison was pretty good. Other people have mentioned Shreve's Stochastic Calculus for Finance. There's actually two parts to it. Part 1 is the binomial asset pricing model and this is the one you would want (for now). Part two is on stochastic differential equations. I've used part 2 and I thought it was a good book that covers a lot of amount of material. It is certainly not an easy read though\""
}
] |
5422 | What are some good books for learning stocks, bonds, derivatives e.t.c for beginner with a math background? | [
{
"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": "588153",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!"
},
{
"docid": "574372",
"title": "",
"text": "cfa here what sort of valuation/modeling/analysis do you do? is it similar to the cfa curriculum? just because you're good at math doesn't mean you'll be good at cfa math. and do you have a good knowledge of econ, quantitative methods, and equity/debt concepts? keep in mind you only need to pass and not get everything right. for the most part i feel that people who come from a finance background in terms of education and/or work experience has it easier. ~150 hours seems to be cutting it close personally"
},
{
"docid": "259081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\""
},
{
"docid": "376859",
"title": "",
"text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program."
},
{
"docid": "197323",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"major\"\", I take it you're an undergrad? If so, how many years left do you have in your program? I ask because it might be worthwhile to major in math in lieu of - or in addition to - finance. It's unlikely that an undergraduate major in a business school will give you the technical skill-set necessary to do what you want. Also, if you want to do prop trading, learn as much statistics/econometrics as you can handle. As for masters programs, I'm not really sure. MFE programs seem more aimed towards people working on the sell-side, e.g. as derivatives quants. EDIT: I accidentally some grammar.\""
},
{
"docid": "317533",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\""
},
{
"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": "133935",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\""
},
{
"docid": "334571",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am sorry to hear that. Well, finance is a VERY large field encompassing decades upon decades of research, and thousands of pages of research. This question is usually a difficult one to answer simply because of the scope. My usual answer to people is to browse around this sub and the internet and learn from that, and then for specific questions to ask. For your purposes, take a look at investopedia.com. While here it's an \"\"okay\"\" source, for a beginner I think it's a good place to start. Is there any specific thing you have a question about now? I know you mentioned the Big Short and some other things. Just keep in mind anything coming from Hollywood will be *extremely* biased.\""
},
{
"docid": "78249",
"title": "",
"text": "If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/"
},
{
"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": "10558",
"title": "",
"text": "\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\""
},
{
"docid": "246545",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I guess it depends on what you think \"\"tough math\"\" is. A lot of finance folks have only a passing familiarity with algebra in day-to-day use. At the portfolio-building level, it depends on the style of management. Pretty much every PM will be somewhat familiar with statistics into the concepts of linear regression. The quants, however, start going into all sorts of things. Multiple regression models to start with, but ARCH/GARCH stuff, vector autoregression, et cetera on the econometrics side. Other folks bring in things like martingale theory and some other things I don't know about. Derivatives and arbitrage are where you'll probably find the most \"\"fun\"\" math. They use of binomial pricing models, various types of calculus, and whatever else they dream up these days. I don't work in this area, so I'm not as clued in here. If you'd like to do something a little bit more guided than self-learning, check out the curricula for MS programs in Financial Engineering; they'll give some leads, too.\""
},
{
"docid": "81304",
"title": "",
"text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here."
},
{
"docid": "255390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"UCLA is not a bad place to be school wise. You will be pretty much limited to applying to the LA and possibly SF offices of any BB bank or relevant boutiques/MMs. But for those LA positions in particular, you will get a fair look. So your institution is respected. Your experience also seems to be decent, especially considering you spent time at a community college. It all matters how you market it. Be humble but don't sell yourself short. Don't claim you founded Yahoo, but also give an honest view of what you did. You can be proud of founding a distribution company and learning the business practices that go hand in hand with that. Both on your resume and in any interviews you may have, discuss how your experiences in that role will help you be a better intern and in the future a better analyst. Mostly intangibles, skills you learned, etc. The same goes for the other position, although the wealth management position probably has more applicable skills. So don't sell yourself too short in that department. Just lend an appropriate level of importance to the positions you've held; don't overstate your positions but also give yourself credit for what you've learned and what you've done. As far as your performance at UCLA so far and GPA, that might be a concern, but I think you can overcome it with enough work on your part during recruiting. I assumed your story from high school through community college and to UCLA is a fairly challenging one. It likely involved some financial hardships and a good deal of adversity. Most importantly, it probably took a lot of perseverance and hard work on your part to get to where you are now. If you can amply convey that during interviews without sounding like a martyr, you can likely overcome any downside to not having a GPA. Clearly you were able to get to UCLA from a tough starting point, which demonstrates the combination of hard work and intelligence that a GPA is meant to convey and which banks look for in applicants. Additionally, interviews occur in January so you will have one semester's worth of work to show for it by then and when interviews come around you'll be able to conjoin the story of your journey to UCLA to your first semester GPA to lend some credibility to your historical successes. Now, a lot of what I've said is contingent on you getting to an interview. Before that stage, it is hard to sell the merits of your alternative path to UCLA and to the interview on paper. You have the cover letter to make brief mention of those things, but the cover letter is far too short a medium through which to convey the entire story. So, getting yourself into the interview is the most important step you have to take at this point. Once you get your foot in the door and get a few first rounds, you'll be able to let your salesmanship shine and show them the merits of the path you've travelled. An important step of getting the interview will be networking. Everyone on here says \"\"just go network\"\" which is really vague and doesn't help anyone, especially because it is the most heinous of all collegiate finance buzzwords. You should contact specifically two groups of people: alumni working in the banks you are interested in apply for AND the bank HR representatives for your school. You ought to talk to the UCLA career services people as soon as you can and get names of UCLA graduates who work at the banks you're interested in. Career services also ought to have the names of the relevant HR representatives. Both the employees at these banks and the HR recruiters will have an important voice in who gets interviews, so make sure you talk to both of them. You should be inquisitive and ask about the bank and the experiences those you talk to have had, but you can also try to creatively weave in details about your story. I.e., when talking to someone you could bring up concerns about getting looked at because of your background and then ask whoever you're speaking with WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OVERCOME THAT. It should always be phrased as a question, so as to avoid seeming as if you're trying to sell yourself or brag during any informational calls. The purpose of the calls should be to talk about the bank and the job, so try as best you can to work in limited mention of yourself unless specifically asked and focus the discussion on the employee/recruiter and not yourself. You should also work to learn all the finance information you'll need for the job. Being that you have a nontraditional finance background and limited academic credentials, you will be asked extensive financial information questions if not during any informational calls definitely during first round interviews. Your knowledge of and commitment to a financial job is uncertain due to your academic background, so people will ask you basic to slightly more advanced financial analysis questions to see where your competency is at. Study up in the vault guide, with a particular focus on the fields you will be applying for. Understand DCF, LBO, M&A accretion-dilution, and financial statement analysis primarily (for IB internships). Learn specifics for other roles (Equity research may require more equity specific stuff, cap markets will be similar to IB as listed above, S&T will be less specific prep and more bainteasers/fast math). Prepare a stock pitch of some sort as well in case they ask you for one, and pick something obscure-ish so that it won't be too closely scrutinized. Stock pitch will come up randomly in interviews and specifically if you apply to equity research. In that same vain of thought, you should also think a bit about what group you want to apply to at these banks. Its good you have an interest in finance and in banking, but there are a lot of facets to the banking industry which you could pursue (traditional investment banking, capital markets, sales and trading, equity research, asset management, to name a few). Some are easier to wedge you way into, others harder (I have them listed in rough order of difficulty from hardest to easiest above). You can usually apply to a couple of different groups at each bank, so take advantage of that and definitely apply to multiple groups, talk to multiple groups, network with multiple groups and try to spread yourself around and get as many interviews as possible. TL;DR: you've got a decent product for sale here, but you'll need to polish up you pitch and learn financial skills to back up the story and prove you're competent and serious to an interviewers. While you do that, reach out to UCLA alumni in the banking industry and the HR recruiters for the banks to get your name in front of people and work toward securing a first round interview. Networking in this way is going to be the most important part of recruitment for you over the next 3-5 months.\""
},
{
"docid": "4541",
"title": "",
"text": "That's what I have been trying to do. I do every practice test after each chapter and if I do great then on tot he next. If not, back to reading it again. What I have been seeing a lot on the new CSC test's is less math and more memorization. So IIROC mandate questions, derivatives, define a foreign bond etc."
},
{
"docid": "165294",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I thought Derivatives Markets by Robert McDonald was a solid textbook when I used it for an SOA exam and a 4th year financial mathematics course. For a decent intro to interest rates, annuities, bonds etc I thought \"\"The Theory of Interest\"\" by Stephen Kellison was pretty good. Other people have mentioned Shreve's Stochastic Calculus for Finance. There's actually two parts to it. Part 1 is the binomial asset pricing model and this is the one you would want (for now). Part two is on stochastic differential equations. I've used part 2 and I thought it was a good book that covers a lot of amount of material. It is certainly not an easy read though\""
},
{
"docid": "63871",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What part of finance does he want to get into? Investments, Equities and trading, derivatives, finance as a whole, corporate finance? Most academic textbooks are ridiculously priced so if he is looking to learn technical skills he might have to look at splashing out or looking elsewhere... Fundamentals of Corporate Finance 7th is a good one. Covers a lot of the core parts of finance which then extend to all the other areas of finance, starting at the basics of Time Value of Money (though it does gloss over some of the more complex parts). However, it is pretty expensive. This is an academic textbook. On the non-technical side, there are a number of books with which he could get started. Benjamin Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a popular and affordable one, but it won't teach much about the technical side of finance.\""
},
{
"docid": "151203",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in."
}
] |
5422 | What are some good books for learning stocks, bonds, derivatives e.t.c for beginner with a math background? | [
{
"docid": "151973",
"title": "",
"text": "My personal favorites are Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by John C Hull Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman Expected Returns - Antti Ilmanen [check out the video : How to Think About Expected Returns] It is a 600 page book … A summary of it: Without a rational expectation of expected returns, investing can lead to severe disappointment and disillusionment. Making a good model to forecast expected returns is so difficult. Near-term expectation is almost impossible. The key is very very much about focusing on the long-term, and on getting returns that are feasible, not outlandish. There are three pillars that are central: Practically, the work of an investment manager today involves finding many different sources of returns, and diversifying effectively between them, and finally being humble about what returns we can expect today."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "273906",
"title": "",
"text": "Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets."
},
{
"docid": "342485",
"title": "",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way."
},
{
"docid": "246545",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I guess it depends on what you think \"\"tough math\"\" is. A lot of finance folks have only a passing familiarity with algebra in day-to-day use. At the portfolio-building level, it depends on the style of management. Pretty much every PM will be somewhat familiar with statistics into the concepts of linear regression. The quants, however, start going into all sorts of things. Multiple regression models to start with, but ARCH/GARCH stuff, vector autoregression, et cetera on the econometrics side. Other folks bring in things like martingale theory and some other things I don't know about. Derivatives and arbitrage are where you'll probably find the most \"\"fun\"\" math. They use of binomial pricing models, various types of calculus, and whatever else they dream up these days. I don't work in this area, so I'm not as clued in here. If you'd like to do something a little bit more guided than self-learning, check out the curricula for MS programs in Financial Engineering; they'll give some leads, too.\""
},
{
"docid": "43397",
"title": "",
"text": "\">Fully half of the universe is making mediocre money, and no one talks about them. All anyone ever speaks of is CEO's and fund managers printing fucking billz. No shit. Just like most people with computer degrees, and in statistics, and engineering. But for some reason only finance has these problems? >Literally anything else. Programming is better, statistics is better, engineering is better. Fuck - go learn a trade. Even ignoring the outsized pay they are receiving, you can typically work for yourself, and you actually create shit The millions of consulting and banking employees are humored that you think it'd be better for them to plunge toilets. But at least you admit they're paid better and you just don't \"\"like\"\" the field. >AND you dont have to spend 100K (SEC numbers) on a fucking degree. 100k? Mine was <10. Most people's are in the SEC outside of Vandy and the morons who are out of state. They're some of the the best value in the country, given you actually get good grades and get a real job. To summarize, you've done nothing but rant about how much you don't like the field, admitted they make a lot more, provided no real rationale why someone should not pursue this degree/field, and your suggestion is to be a Carpenter instead. Just for more background, I'm a math/statistics major, one of your preferred options. Yea, get the fuck out of here.\""
},
{
"docid": "110674",
"title": "",
"text": "Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with. In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K). It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation. They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds. You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days. I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%. You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps."
},
{
"docid": "537944",
"title": "",
"text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course."
},
{
"docid": "207482",
"title": "",
"text": "as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you. I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths). during those months I got medium grades, and failed in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level. So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say? any books?"
},
{
"docid": "151203",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in."
},
{
"docid": "528034",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\""
},
{
"docid": "255390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"UCLA is not a bad place to be school wise. You will be pretty much limited to applying to the LA and possibly SF offices of any BB bank or relevant boutiques/MMs. But for those LA positions in particular, you will get a fair look. So your institution is respected. Your experience also seems to be decent, especially considering you spent time at a community college. It all matters how you market it. Be humble but don't sell yourself short. Don't claim you founded Yahoo, but also give an honest view of what you did. You can be proud of founding a distribution company and learning the business practices that go hand in hand with that. Both on your resume and in any interviews you may have, discuss how your experiences in that role will help you be a better intern and in the future a better analyst. Mostly intangibles, skills you learned, etc. The same goes for the other position, although the wealth management position probably has more applicable skills. So don't sell yourself too short in that department. Just lend an appropriate level of importance to the positions you've held; don't overstate your positions but also give yourself credit for what you've learned and what you've done. As far as your performance at UCLA so far and GPA, that might be a concern, but I think you can overcome it with enough work on your part during recruiting. I assumed your story from high school through community college and to UCLA is a fairly challenging one. It likely involved some financial hardships and a good deal of adversity. Most importantly, it probably took a lot of perseverance and hard work on your part to get to where you are now. If you can amply convey that during interviews without sounding like a martyr, you can likely overcome any downside to not having a GPA. Clearly you were able to get to UCLA from a tough starting point, which demonstrates the combination of hard work and intelligence that a GPA is meant to convey and which banks look for in applicants. Additionally, interviews occur in January so you will have one semester's worth of work to show for it by then and when interviews come around you'll be able to conjoin the story of your journey to UCLA to your first semester GPA to lend some credibility to your historical successes. Now, a lot of what I've said is contingent on you getting to an interview. Before that stage, it is hard to sell the merits of your alternative path to UCLA and to the interview on paper. You have the cover letter to make brief mention of those things, but the cover letter is far too short a medium through which to convey the entire story. So, getting yourself into the interview is the most important step you have to take at this point. Once you get your foot in the door and get a few first rounds, you'll be able to let your salesmanship shine and show them the merits of the path you've travelled. An important step of getting the interview will be networking. Everyone on here says \"\"just go network\"\" which is really vague and doesn't help anyone, especially because it is the most heinous of all collegiate finance buzzwords. You should contact specifically two groups of people: alumni working in the banks you are interested in apply for AND the bank HR representatives for your school. You ought to talk to the UCLA career services people as soon as you can and get names of UCLA graduates who work at the banks you're interested in. Career services also ought to have the names of the relevant HR representatives. Both the employees at these banks and the HR recruiters will have an important voice in who gets interviews, so make sure you talk to both of them. You should be inquisitive and ask about the bank and the experiences those you talk to have had, but you can also try to creatively weave in details about your story. I.e., when talking to someone you could bring up concerns about getting looked at because of your background and then ask whoever you're speaking with WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OVERCOME THAT. It should always be phrased as a question, so as to avoid seeming as if you're trying to sell yourself or brag during any informational calls. The purpose of the calls should be to talk about the bank and the job, so try as best you can to work in limited mention of yourself unless specifically asked and focus the discussion on the employee/recruiter and not yourself. You should also work to learn all the finance information you'll need for the job. Being that you have a nontraditional finance background and limited academic credentials, you will be asked extensive financial information questions if not during any informational calls definitely during first round interviews. Your knowledge of and commitment to a financial job is uncertain due to your academic background, so people will ask you basic to slightly more advanced financial analysis questions to see where your competency is at. Study up in the vault guide, with a particular focus on the fields you will be applying for. Understand DCF, LBO, M&A accretion-dilution, and financial statement analysis primarily (for IB internships). Learn specifics for other roles (Equity research may require more equity specific stuff, cap markets will be similar to IB as listed above, S&T will be less specific prep and more bainteasers/fast math). Prepare a stock pitch of some sort as well in case they ask you for one, and pick something obscure-ish so that it won't be too closely scrutinized. Stock pitch will come up randomly in interviews and specifically if you apply to equity research. In that same vain of thought, you should also think a bit about what group you want to apply to at these banks. Its good you have an interest in finance and in banking, but there are a lot of facets to the banking industry which you could pursue (traditional investment banking, capital markets, sales and trading, equity research, asset management, to name a few). Some are easier to wedge you way into, others harder (I have them listed in rough order of difficulty from hardest to easiest above). You can usually apply to a couple of different groups at each bank, so take advantage of that and definitely apply to multiple groups, talk to multiple groups, network with multiple groups and try to spread yourself around and get as many interviews as possible. TL;DR: you've got a decent product for sale here, but you'll need to polish up you pitch and learn financial skills to back up the story and prove you're competent and serious to an interviewers. While you do that, reach out to UCLA alumni in the banking industry and the HR recruiters for the banks to get your name in front of people and work toward securing a first round interview. Networking in this way is going to be the most important part of recruitment for you over the next 3-5 months.\""
},
{
"docid": "544627",
"title": "",
"text": "Math and Econ double here. At a BB now. Will heading back to get MS in computational (quant) finance soon. Here's my advice. Learn the following: * Differential Equations, * Linear Algebra, * Numerical Analysis, * Stochastic Calculus. The statistics used are more complex than econometrics. Econometrics is a very vague and rough introduction to Linear Algebra and mediocre (at best) depth in statistics. Statistics you use are not going to be basic business stat. It will be stochastic calculus which is why you need to have a firm grasp of multivariate calculus [calc 3] and proficiency with MatLab, Maple, or another equivalent. Every info session I've attended regarding MS Finance programs has the expectation of a coursework background that has reached at least Calc 3 and Linear Algebra. Some programs will admit based on GMAT/GRE quant score but will require you to take those math courses in first semester (and thus sacrifice a possible dual program option and limit your concentrations). Other programs aren't as lenient... Just depends on the school you plan on attending. As per your question, calculus comes into play in just about every single real world valuation you will do, regardless the product. **edit:** and down votes for real world advice? nice r/finance"
},
{
"docid": "562045",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A good place to start is to read, such as : Robert T. Kiyosaki : poor dad rich dad. It is quite simple but it gives the good mindset to start. But moreover it is stated in the book : \"\"the best investement you can make is educate yourself\"\". You current situation is quite difficcult, but don't give up on your study. From your post i didn't understand : do you have a master degree? If you love math, learn coding and find a job in banking or else. People that know how to code AND have a good level in math worth a lot.\""
},
{
"docid": "526664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\""
},
{
"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": "599436",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\""
},
{
"docid": "58390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If that's your goal. Watch the entire webinar on warren buffet books by Preston Pysh first for a good intro into stocks bonds etc: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLECECA66C0CE68B1E&v=KfDB9e_cO4k Read Dale Carnegies book \"\"How to Win Friends and Influence People\"\" in order to learn how to communicate to people effectively and create networks. The most important skill in any field you choose to go into. Read \"\"The Everything Store\"\" for essentially an MBA in business. Read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin graham for a bachelors in finance. Then take classes that get you the very best professors in the field of finance, economics, and business at your school and make sure you never stop asking questions. Continue to develop your skills and create good saving & communication habits. And if you want great jobs, get internships. To get internships be involved in as much as you can in campus and take leadership roles (especially when you think you can't handle it) you will grow quickly as a leader and businessman if you do it right. If reading is a bit much for you, try audiobooks. And make sure you enjoy college and surround yourself with ambitious youngsters like yourself. It will help you grow. Enjoy school and be social, make mistakes and do whatever it takes to get a minimum 3.5 GPA (get old tests study groups easy teachers or GPA boosting classes if you need to) Aight that's all I got haha\""
},
{
"docid": "461018",
"title": "",
"text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice."
},
{
"docid": "317533",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\""
},
{
"docid": "197323",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"major\"\", I take it you're an undergrad? If so, how many years left do you have in your program? I ask because it might be worthwhile to major in math in lieu of - or in addition to - finance. It's unlikely that an undergraduate major in a business school will give you the technical skill-set necessary to do what you want. Also, if you want to do prop trading, learn as much statistics/econometrics as you can handle. As for masters programs, I'm not really sure. MFE programs seem more aimed towards people working on the sell-side, e.g. as derivatives quants. EDIT: I accidentally some grammar.\""
}
] |
5422 | What are some good books for learning stocks, bonds, derivatives e.t.c for beginner with a math background? | [
{
"docid": "13513",
"title": "",
"text": "Start with Options, Futures and Other Derivatives by John Hull."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "4541",
"title": "",
"text": "That's what I have been trying to do. I do every practice test after each chapter and if I do great then on tot he next. If not, back to reading it again. What I have been seeing a lot on the new CSC test's is less math and more memorization. So IIROC mandate questions, derivatives, define a foreign bond etc."
},
{
"docid": "537944",
"title": "",
"text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course."
},
{
"docid": "588153",
"title": "",
"text": "A derivative is a financial instrument of a special kind, the kind “whose price depends on, or is derived from, another asset”. This definition is from John Hull, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives – a book definitely worth to own if you are curious about this, you can easily find old copies for a few dollars. The first point is that a derivative is a financial instrument, like credits, or insurances, the second point is that its price depends closely from the price of something else, the mentioned asset. In most cases derivatives can be understood as financial insurances against some risk bound to the asset. In the sequel I give a small list of derivatives and highlight the assets and the risk they can be bound to. And first, let me point out that the definition is (marginally) wrong because some derivatives depend on things which are not assets, nor do they have a price, like temperature, sunlight, or even your own life in the case of mortgages. But before going in this list, let me go through the remaining points of your question. What is the basic idea and concept behind a derivative? As already noted, in most cases, a derivative can be understood as a financial insurance compensating from a risk of some sort. In a classical insurance contract, one party of the contract is an insurance company, but in the broader case of a derivative, that counterparty can be pretty anything: an insurance, a bank, a government, a large company, and most probably market makers. How is it really used, and how does this deviate from the first point? Briefly, how does is it affecting people, and how is it causing problems? An important point with derivatives is that it can be arbitrarily complicated to compute their prices. Actually what is hidden in the attempt of giving a definition for derivatives, is that they are products whose price Y is a measurable function of one or several random variables X_1, X_2, … X_n on which we can use the theory of arbitrage pricing to get hints on the actual price Y of the asset – this is what the depends on means in technical terms. In the most favorable case, we obtain an easy formula linking Y to the X_is which tells us what is the price of our financial instrument. But in practice, it can be very difficult, if at all possible, to determine a price for derivatives. This has two implications: Persons possessing sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives have a strategic advantage on derivatives market, in comparison to less advanced actors on the market. Organisation owning assets they cannot price cannot compute their bilan anymore, so that they cannot know for sure their financial situation. They are somehow playing roulette. But wait, if derivatives are insurances they should help to mitigate some financial risk, which precisely means that they should help their owners to more accurately see their financial situation! How is this not a contradiction? Some persons with sophisticated techniques to compute the price of derivatives are actually selling complicated derivatives to less knowledgeable persons. For instance, many communes in France and Germany have contracted credits whose reimbursements have a fixed interest part, like in a classical credit, and a variable interest part whose rate is computed against a complicated formula involving the value of the Swiss frank at each quarter starting from the inception of the credit. (So, for a 25 years running credit of theis type, the price Y of the credit at its inception depends on 100 Xs, which are the uncertain prices for the Swiss frank each quarter of the 25 next years.) Some of these communes can be quite small, with 5.000 inhabitants, and needless to say, do not have the required expertise to analyse the risks bound to such instruments, which in that special case led the court call the credit a swindling and to cancel the credit. But what chain of events leads a 5.000 inhabitants city in France to own a credit whose reimbursements depends on the Swiss frank? After the credit crunch in 2007 and the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, it has begun to be very hard to organise funding, which basically means to conclude credits running long in time on large amounts of money. So, the municipality needs a 25 years credit of 10.000.000 EUROS and goes to its communal bank. The communal bank has hundreds or thousands of municipalities looking for credits and needs itself a financing. So the communal bank goes to one of the five largest financial institutions in the world, which insists on selling a huge credit whose reimbursements have a variable part depending on hundred of values the Swiss frank will have in the 25 next years. Since the the big bank has better computation techniques than the small bank it makes a big profit. Since the small bank has no idea, how to compute the correct price of the credit it bought, it cuts this in pieces and sell it in the same form to the various communes it works with. If we were to attribute this kind of intentions to the largest five banks, we could ask about the possibility that they designed the credit to take advantage of the primitive evaluation methods of the small bank. We could also ask if they organised a cartel to force communal banks to buy their bermudean snowballs. And we could also ask, if they are so influent that they eventually can manipulate the Swiss frank to secure an even higher profit. But I will not go into this. To the best of my understanding, the subprime crisis is a play along the same plot, with different actors, but I know this latter subject only by what I could read in French newspapers. So much for the “How is it causing problems?” part. What is some of the terminology in relation to derivatives (and there meanings of course)? Answering this question is basically the purpose of the 7 first chapters of the book by Hull, along with deriving some important mathematical principles. And I will not copy these seven chapters here! How would someone get started dealing in derivatives (I'm playing a realistic stock market simulation, so it doesn't matter if your answer to this costs me money)? If you ask the question, I understand that you are not a professional, so that your are actually trying to become the one that has money and zero knowledge in the play I outlined above. I would recommand not doing this. That said, if you have a good mathematical background and can program well, once you are confindent with the books of Hull and Joshi, you can have fun implementing various market models and implementing trading strategies. Once you are confident with this, you can also read the articles on quantitative finance on arXiv.org. And once you are done with this, you can decide for yourself if you want to play the same market as the guys writing these articles. (And yes, even for the simplest options, they have better models than you have and will systematically outperform you in the long run, even if some random successes will give you the feeling that you do well and could do better.) (indeed, I've made it a personal goal to somehow lose every last cent of my money) You know your weapons! :) Two parties agree today on a price for one to deliver a commodity to the other at some future instant. This is a classical future contract, it can be modified in every imaginable way, usually by embedding options. For instance one party could have the option to choose between different delivery points or delivery days. Two parties write today a contract allowing the one party to buy at some future time a commodity to the the second party. The price is written today, as part of the contract. (There is the corresponding option entitling the owner to sell something.) Unlike the future contract, only one party can be obliged to do something, the other jas a right but no obligation. If you buy and option, your are buying some sort of insurance against a change of price on some asset. This is the most familiar to anybody. Credits can come in many different flavours, especially the formula to compute interests, or also embed options. Common options are early settlement options or restructuration options. While this is not completely inutitive, the credit works like an insurance. This is most easily understood from the side of the organisation lending the money, that speculates that the ratio of creanciers going bankrupt will be low enough for her to make profit, just like a fire insurance company speculates that the ratio of fire accidents will be low enough for her to make a profit. This is like a mortgage on a financial institution. Two parties agree that one will recive an upfront today and give a compensation to the second one if some third party defaults. Here this is an explicit insurance against the unfortuante event, where a creancier goes bankrupt. One finds here more or less standard options on electricity. But electricity have delicious particularities as it can practically not be stored, and fallout is also (usually) avoided. As for classical options, these are insurances against price moves. A swap is like two complementary credits on the same amount of money, so that it ends up in the two parties not actually exchanging the credit nominal and only paying interest one to the other — which makes only sense if these interests are computed with different formulas. Typical example are fixed rate vs. EURIBOR on some given maturity, which we interpret as an insurance against fluctuations of the EURIBOR, or a fixed rate vs. the exchange ratio between two currencies, which we interpret as an insurance against the two currencies decorrelating. Swaps are the richest and the most generic category of financial derivatives. The off-the-counter market features very imaginative, very customised insurance products. The most basic form is the insurance against drought, but you can image different dangers, and once you have it you can put it in options, in a swap, etc. For instance, a restaurant with a terrasse could enter in a weather insurance, paying each year a fixed amount of money and becoming in return an amount of money based on the amount of rainy day in a year. Actually, this list is virtually without limits!"
},
{
"docid": "461018",
"title": "",
"text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice."
},
{
"docid": "224765",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\""
},
{
"docid": "25753",
"title": "",
"text": "How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds). Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation."
},
{
"docid": "291830",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\""
},
{
"docid": "212390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\""
},
{
"docid": "562045",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A good place to start is to read, such as : Robert T. Kiyosaki : poor dad rich dad. It is quite simple but it gives the good mindset to start. But moreover it is stated in the book : \"\"the best investement you can make is educate yourself\"\". You current situation is quite difficcult, but don't give up on your study. From your post i didn't understand : do you have a master degree? If you love math, learn coding and find a job in banking or else. People that know how to code AND have a good level in math worth a lot.\""
},
{
"docid": "78249",
"title": "",
"text": "If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/"
},
{
"docid": "388391",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So \"\"Operation Twist\"\" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide \"\"Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?\"\" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee\""
},
{
"docid": "135503",
"title": "",
"text": "Seriously, what he said. Learn HTML / CSS / php / MySQL and you can earn 100k/yr with ease. I've seen people learn it on their own within a year or less. As long as you're diligent and have a passion for building something awesome out of nothing you will learn slowly but surely. Even beginner programmers can make 60k a year without trying."
},
{
"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": "544627",
"title": "",
"text": "Math and Econ double here. At a BB now. Will heading back to get MS in computational (quant) finance soon. Here's my advice. Learn the following: * Differential Equations, * Linear Algebra, * Numerical Analysis, * Stochastic Calculus. The statistics used are more complex than econometrics. Econometrics is a very vague and rough introduction to Linear Algebra and mediocre (at best) depth in statistics. Statistics you use are not going to be basic business stat. It will be stochastic calculus which is why you need to have a firm grasp of multivariate calculus [calc 3] and proficiency with MatLab, Maple, or another equivalent. Every info session I've attended regarding MS Finance programs has the expectation of a coursework background that has reached at least Calc 3 and Linear Algebra. Some programs will admit based on GMAT/GRE quant score but will require you to take those math courses in first semester (and thus sacrifice a possible dual program option and limit your concentrations). Other programs aren't as lenient... Just depends on the school you plan on attending. As per your question, calculus comes into play in just about every single real world valuation you will do, regardless the product. **edit:** and down votes for real world advice? nice r/finance"
},
{
"docid": "350850",
"title": "",
"text": "If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear. In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative."
},
{
"docid": "81304",
"title": "",
"text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here."
},
{
"docid": "90555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're a good candidate in terms of all the usual metrics then it will really come down to selling yourself to any potential advisers. Remember that in PhD admissions individual professors are really making the admissions decisions. Also, as you said you're from an econ background.... Unsurprisingly, mathematical finance is going to be pretty \"\"mathy.\"\" If you haven't had courses in real analysis, differential equations, Fourier analysis, and statistics you may want to brush up on those subjects. I say this because I am doing a PhD minor operations research (coming from a mechanical engineering background) and I have been overwhelmed at times by the level of technical rigor that they take in these courses relative to my \"\"normal\"\" engineering math courses. I would have been well served studying some real analysis before taking stochastic calculus, for instance.\""
},
{
"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": "493671",
"title": "",
"text": "\"i'm absolutely a newcomer in economics and i wish to understand how things work around finance. This is a pretty loaded question. To understand finance, you need the basics of economics. In almost every economics school in the country, you first study microeconomics and then economics. So, we'll start with micro. One of, if not the, most popular books is \"\"Principles of Microeconomics\"\" by Mankiw. This book covers the fundamentals of micro econ (opportunity, supply, demand, consumer choice, production, costs, basic game theory, and allocation of resources) in a clear and effective manner. It's designed for the novice and very easy to read. Like Mankiw's other book, \"\"Principles of Macroeconomics\"\" is also top notch. There is some overlap in key areas (i.e. opportunity cost, supply, demand, indifference curves, elasticity, taxation) because they are fundamental to economics and the overlap will always be there, but from there the book goes into key macro concepts like GDP, CPI, Employment, Monetary and Fiscal policy, and Inflation. An excellent intro primer indeed. Now that you have the fundamentals down, it's time to learn about finance. The best resource, in my opinion, is \"\"Financial Markets\"\" by Robert Shiller on Open Yale Courses. I've personally taken Prof. Shiller's class last semester, and the man is brilliant. The lectures cover every single aspect of finance and can turn the complete novice into a fairly experienced finance student. The first lecture also covers all the math required so you don't get lost at any point. Be warned, however, that the course is very deep. We used Fabozzi's textbook \"\"Foundations of Financial Markets and Institutions,\"\" which is over 600 pages deep and we were required to know essentially all of it. Watch the videos and follow the readings and you'll be a finance whiz soon! Financial Markets on Open Yale And that's your roadmap to what you want. There are other economics books and it's true that the first few chapters of both Mankiw books are largely the same, but that's because any economics course always covers the basics first. If you want to look at other books, Krugman has written some good books as well. Be sure to read reviews because some books are meant for 2nd/3rd year econ students, so you don't want to get a too advanced book. At the novice level, we're interested in understanding the basic concepts so we can master Fabozzi. As for finance books - Fabozzi teaches you all the fundamentals of financial markets so you've got a powerful foundation. From there you can expand to more niche books such as books on investing or on monetary policy or whatever you want. Best of luck!\""
}
] |
5427 | How do auto-loan payments factor into taxes for cars that are solely used by dependent(s)? | [
{
"docid": "200603",
"title": "",
"text": "It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "309298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The PMI premium you pay is dependent on a very large number of variables in the finance market. Mortgage insurance, at the higher inter-bank levels, is handled with credit default swaps (the ones you've been hearing about on the news for the past 4 years), where the lender bundles a block of mortgages, takes them to a guarantor like AIG or Freddie Mac, and says \"\"We bet you that these mortgages will default this month, because the homeowners have little or no equity to deter them; if we win, you agree to swap these debts for their current face value\"\". The lender examines the mortgages, calculates the odds of a default severe enough that the bank would come to collect, using complex environmental heuristics, multiplies by the value of the potential payout, adds a little for their trouble, and says \"\"well, we'll take that bet if you pay us $X\"\". The bank takes the deal, then divvies up that cost among the mortgages and bills the homeowner for their share. The amount you pay for PMI can therefore depend on pretty much anything in this entire process; the exact outstanding amount and equity status of your loan, the similar status of other mortgages your loan will be bundled with for assessment, who the guarantor is, what exact heuristic they use to come up with an amount, the weighting the bank uses to divvy it up, and how much they actually pass on to you. Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that \"\"drivers who switched saved an average of $X\"\"; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no. While the overall amount of the payments does decrease, the PMI has gone up, and that's money you'll never see again just like interest (except you can deduct interest; not PMI). I would do the tax math; find out how much you could deduct over the next year in interest on your current loan, then on their proposed terms, and what the resulting tax bills will be from both. You may save monthly only to pay more than you saved to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. You're also free to negotiate. The worst they can do is stay firm on their offer, but they may take a second look and say \"\"you're right, that PMI is rather high, we'll try again and see if we can do better\"\". They can either negotiate with their insurer, or they can eat some of the PMI cost that they're currently passing on to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "224800",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Without welfare to keep it alive Tesla would've gone under, they had a few near death experiences. The near death experience was saved by Mercedes, not the government. Any other prior near death experiences were saved by private financing rounds from various VC firms and Musk himself. The government loan accelerated release and production ramp of the Model S, it did not save the company. By the way, Nissan took a loan almost 10x the size of Tesla's, I believe Ford took almost as much as well. I do not blame either, nor do I blame the government, because the point of these loans is to improve advanced powertrains to get us off of gasoline, which is a plague on the world, and thus these were a fantastic way to spend a small amount of our resources to make a big result - and produce a profit for the country at the same time. >On top of that, if you're wealthy enough to buy a model S in California, you qualify for nearly $10,000 in state and federal subsidies. The government is all up in there making it happen. The Model S has routinely destroyed every competitor in just about every way, has won top marks in nearly every review and just about every award it's eligible for, has received the best customer satisfaction numbers recorded, and has outsold the competition despite being new and constrained in many ways and even blocked from selling in multiple states. And is selling at a price point where $10,000 is nice, but hardly breaks the bank, especially considering the amount of people who buy the upgraded battery pack, which costs them $10,000, even though they don't need it. So you really think a car which is so much better than anything else anywhere near its price point is going to sell solely because of the tax credit? If so, I suspect you haven't driven one, because if you had, you would know that it sells because of the driving experience, not the tax credit. Rich people aren't sitting down with their friends' accountants to tell them to buy one, they're giving their friends test drives and blowing their freaking minds. Further, the oil industry has accepted subsidies for over 100 years, as have many other automakers, and as referenced before there are some states where the government blocks Tesla from selling cars. So I suppose \"\"the gubmint is all up in there making it happen\"\" for everyone else as well, aren't they?\""
},
{
"docid": "159840",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to the answer from CQM, let me answer your 'am I missing anything?' question. Then I'll talk about how your approach of simplifying this is making it both harder and easier for you. Last I'll show what my model for this would look like, but if you aren't capable of stacking this up yourself, then you REALLY shouldn't be borrowing 10,000 to try to make money on the margin. Am I missing anything? YES. You're forgetting (1) taxes, specifically income tax, and (2) sales commissions//transaction fees. On the first: You have not considered anything in your financial model for taxes. You should include at least 25% of your expected returns going to taxes, because anything that you buy... and then sell within 12 months... is taxed as income. Not capital gains. On the second: you will incur sales commissions and/or transaction fees depending on the brokerage you are using for your plan. These tend to vary widely, but I would expect to spend at least $25 per sale. So if I were building out this model I would think that your break-even would have to at least cover: monthly interest + monthly principal payment income tax when sold commissions and broker's fees every time you sell holdings On over-simplifying: You have the right idea with thinking about both interest and principal in trying to sketch this out. But as I mentioned above, you're making this both harder and easier for yourself. You are making it harder because you are doing the math wrong. The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal). Your rate of return (if you do this in Excel you can play with it some, but you should save the time and just invest somewhere else.) Your actual return that month (rate of return * existing capital balance). Loan payment = 432 for the parameters you gave earlier. Income tax = (Actual Return) * (.25). With this kind of loan, you're not actually making enough to preserve the 10,000 capital and you're selling everything you've gained each month. Commission = ($25 per month) ... assuming that covers your trade fees and broker commissions. I guarantee you that this is not the deal breaker in the model, so don't get excited if you think I'm over-estimating this and you realize that Scottrade or somewhere will let you have trades at $7.95 each. Monthly ending balance == next month's starting capital balance. Stack it all up in Excel for 24 months and see for yourself if you like. The key thing you left out is that you're repaying each month out of capital that you'd like to use to invest with. This makes you need much higher returns. Even if your initial description wasn't clear and this is an interest-only loan, you're still looking at a rate of about 7.6% annually that you need to hit in order to just break even on the costs of holding the loan and transferring your gains into cash."
},
{
"docid": "310790",
"title": "",
"text": "The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone."
},
{
"docid": "522532",
"title": "",
"text": "Regarding the opportunity cost comparison, consider the following two scenarios assuming a three-year lease: Option A: Keep your current car for three years In this scenario, you start with a car that's worth $10,000 and end with a car that's worth $7,000 after three years. Option B: Sell your current car, invest proceeds, lease new car Here, you'll start out with $10,000 and invest it. You'll start with $10,000 in cash from the sale of your old car, and end with $10,000 plus investment gains. You'll have to estimate the return of your investment based on your investing style. Option C: Use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new car In this scenario you'll get a reduction in finance charges on your lease, but you'll be out $10,000 at the end. Overall Cost Comparison To compare the total cost to own your current car versus replacing it with a new leased car, first look up the cost of ownership for your current car for the same term as the lease you're considering. Edmunds offers this research and calls it True Cost to Own. Specifically, you'll want to include depreciation, fuel, insurance, maintenance and repairs. If you still owe money you should also factor the remaining payments. So the formula is: Cost to keep car = Depreciation + Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Repairs On the lease side consider taxes and fees, all lease payments, fuel, and maintenance. Assume repairs will be covered under warranty. Assume you will put down no money on the lease and you will finance fees, taxes, title, and license when calculating lease payments. You also need to consider the cost to pay off your current car's loan if applicable. Then you should subtract the gains you expect from investing for three years the proceeds from the sale of your car. Assume that repairs will be covered under warranty. The formula to lease looks like: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments - (gains from investing $10k) For option C, where you use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new lease, it will be: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments + $10,000 A somewhat intangible factor to consider is that you'll have to pay for body damage to a leased car at the end of the lease, whereas you are obviously free to leave damage unrepaired on your own vehicle."
},
{
"docid": "327441",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \"\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\"\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \"\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\"\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \"\"don't plan on ever using credit again\"\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \"\"responsibility partner\"\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\""
},
{
"docid": "57517",
"title": "",
"text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater."
},
{
"docid": "454084",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are not open to changing the amount of money you are willing to spend, your options are limited. Why change your amounts and proportions? Your situation changed. You got married, divorced, purchased a new car, the company added free disability coverage. If the amount spent per year can't change, then you are asking how to review if your proportions are correct. The first thing is to look at what must you spend it on. If you have a mortgage or car loan, the bank will tell you the minimum amount. If you own a car the state will tell you the minimum amount for auto coverage. If there is any money left look at life, and disability. These can wreck the life of your dependents. When you have meet those needs, then increase auto and home to cover additional liability."
},
{
"docid": "118280",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Chino CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Chino CA 12403 Central Ave # 274, Chino, CA 91710 909-325-3099 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-chino-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "145276",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one? I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car. Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance. I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage. Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage. You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately."
},
{
"docid": "542671",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in Victorville CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans Victorville CA 17100-B Bear Valley Rd # 504, Victorville, CA 92395 760-493-2711 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-victorville-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "193641",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old This is fairly straight forward. If you've not been exposed to borrowing for a reasonable length of time, people won't want to lend you money. They have no reason to have any confidence in your ability to repay them. As other said, it's pretty much a case of proving yourself by being good with credit over a period of time. 2. You have no active credit card accounts Credit reference agencies have to consider a variety of factors for a variety of purposes. Notably, they will be used for credit cards, unsecured loans, mortgages, and secured loans such as vehicle finance applications. These all have varying types of customer, and some will be inherently more risky than others. For instance, someone with a mortgage on a home is far more likely to make payments because they would be homeless without, however someone with a finance agreement on a car is relatively less likely to make those payments because all they stand to lose is their car. Consider that the most fruitful information the lender will get is a score and some breakdown of how it's generated, it's a very general understanding of your history. For that reason, having a wide variety of credit is very important. A good variety of credit to have would be one secured loan (e.g car finance) to get started, as well as at least one revolving unsecured credit account (e.g a credit card), and later on in your \"\"credit life\"\" an unsecured fixed term loan (e.g a loan for something which has nothing secured against it). I say the above reluctantly, because that's how I increased my credit score from 450 to 999 - first step was the car finance where in 3 months or so I changed from 450 to around 600, with a credit card I was approaching 900, and once I had an unsecured loan for 8 months I hit 999 - now I have all of the above plus a competitive mortgage and remain at 999. Whether each is mandatory to maintain 999 is debatable but based on personal experience, it seems reasonable.\""
},
{
"docid": "596957",
"title": "",
"text": "Can you reduce your interest rate? Talk to the lender. Maybe. Probably not. The rate reflects their perception of how much of a risk they're taking with the loan. But if all you're borrowing is $2000, the savings that you might get out of any adjustment to the rate is not going to be all that significant. Sure, it would be nice, but it's not going to be enough to make or break your decision to buy this car. The big savings will be that you're paying interest on a much smaller loan, which means you can reduce your payments and/or pay it off more quickly. REMINDER: NEVER TALK TO AN AUTO DEALER ABOUT FINANCING UNTIL AFTER THE PRICE OF THE CAR HAS BEEN NAILED DOWN -- otherwise they will raise the purchase price to cover the cost of offering you an apparently cheap loan."
},
{
"docid": "258799",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Does your planning include contingencies for Can you afford the late fees, insurance increases, bad credit hits and all the other downsides when this goes bad? Why does she NEED a new car on lease? Personally? I'd go for option B) Do what it takes to have her OWN a car. Why not just have her get a car that costs IN ENTIRE the $3k that would be used for a down payment on a lease? Maybe add a bit of your own money \"\"for old times sake\"\" to the pile? Or a small loan to get to where she can get a usable, dependable car? Say, a $3-5k loan in your name that she's responsible for the payments. $3-10k can get a very dependable old car. 10 great cars for 6k or less Everyone else has been burned by her - for whatever reason. No idea what the reasons are, but she seems to be unable to pay her bills. Why would this time be any different? Your name on a car + someone who can't pay bills = a bad proposition. I would LOVE to help anyone who's been important in my life. Including MY x-wife. But I wouldn't agree to this deal unless I KNEW that I could 100% cover the costs when things go bad - because at this point, odds are they will.\""
},
{
"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": "591843",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Apple Valley CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Apple Valley CA 17868 US Highway 18 # 409, Apple Valley, CA 92307 760-493-2444 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-apple-valley-ca/"
},
{
"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": "463575",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Torrance CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Torrance CA 1148 W Clarion Dr, Torrance, CA 90502 Phone : 424-306-1531 Email : [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-torrance-ca"
},
{
"docid": "590364",
"title": "",
"text": "Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure."
}
] |
5427 | How do auto-loan payments factor into taxes for cars that are solely used by dependent(s)? | [
{
"docid": "323284",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't see how allowing usage of your vehicle is less support than giving money to buy their own vehicle. If that's the only vehicle your mother has - then you're supporting her. Quantifying that support may be difficult though, but if you are providing her all of her needs - it doesn't matter. If she does have income of her own, I do not think that you can put the actual amount you're paying as part of the calculation towards the 50% rule since she would otherwise have bought a much cheaper car. But if you pass the 50% threshold even without the car payments - then you're fine either way."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "472200",
"title": "",
"text": "Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing."
},
{
"docid": "60282",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\""
},
{
"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": "341252",
"title": "",
"text": "17.5 thousand miles/year is pretty high mileage. You could find an Accord or Civic of comparable age with much lower mileage than that, and it wouldn't be a stretch for someone (even with your limited credit history) to get a loan on an old car like that. You might try to have your parents cosign on a loan depending on their financial circumstances. That's how I bought my first car 13 years ago. The biggest surprise you might want to consider is the cost of full collision auto coverage which will be required by whatever bank you finance through. Get quotes for that before signing any papers. (I spent $2000 more on a motorcycle because the more powerful one cost $2000 less/year to insure just a few years after I bought that first car.) Speaking of which, another thing to consider given the nice LA weather is a motorcycle. The total cost of ownership is much lower than a car. You will probably not want to pursue that option if you do not have medical insurance, and you may not want to anyway."
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "489277",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in Barstow CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans Barstow CA 501 E Virginia Way # 1-A Barstow, CA 92311 (760) 957-4105 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-barstow-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "188713",
"title": "",
"text": "Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction."
},
{
"docid": "571295",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\""
},
{
"docid": "502628",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans West Covina CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans West Covina CA 1203 W Francisquito Ave # 1207, West Covina, CA 91790 626-653-4292 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-covina-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "131334",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Ezee Auto Car Title Loans Glendora CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Ezee Auto Car Title Loans Glendora CA 147 W. Rt.66, #309-k, Glendora, CA 91740 626-263-4263 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-glendora-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "145276",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one? I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car. Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance. I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage. Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage. You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately."
},
{
"docid": "81530",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "91838",
"title": "",
"text": "It looks to me like this is a 'call an attorney' situation, which is always a good idea in situations like this (family legal disputes). But, some information. First off, if your family is going to take the car, you certainly won't need to make payments on it any more at that point, in my opinion. If the will goes through probate (which is the only way they'd really be able to take it), the probate judge should either leave you with the car and the payments, or neither (presumably requiring the family to pay off the loan and settle your interest in the car). Since the car has negative net value, it seems unlikely that the probate judge would take the car away from you, but who knows. Either way, if they do take the car away from you, they'll be doing you a service: you have a $6,000 car that you owe $12,000 on. Let them, and walk away and buy another car for $6,000. Second, I'm not sure they would be allowed to in any event. See the Illinois DMV page on correcting titles in the case of a deceased owner; Illinois I believe is a joint tenancy state, meaning that once one owner dies, the other just gets the car (and the loan, though the loan documents would cover that). Unless you had an explicit agreement with your grandfather, anyway. From that page: Joint Ownership A title in the names of two or more persons is considered to be in joint tenancy. Upon the death of one of them, the surviving joint tenant(s) becomes the owner(s) of the vehicle by law. Third, your grandfather can fix all of this fairly easily by mentioning the disposition of the car and loan in his will, if he's still mentally competent and wishes to do so. If he transfers his ownership of the car to you in the will, it seems like that would be that (though again, it's not clear that the ownership wouldn't just be yours anyway). Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, so do not construe any of the text of this post as legal advice; contact a lawyer."
},
{
"docid": "310790",
"title": "",
"text": "The article states their reasons pretty clearly, and indicates that some people won't qualify under the new requirements that would have previously, they're not courting people with bad credit, they're just looking beyond credit score at other factors. They aren't opening floodgates for anyone with a pulse to get a car loan, just shifting things a bit to cast a slightly wider net. This is not new in the world of secured debt, the FHA has methodology for establishing a non-traditional credit report based on things like rental history, utility payments, auto-insurance payments, a person can't be declined an FHA loan for lack for lack of traditional credit history. I look beyond credit score as a landlord, a tenant with poor credit but a stellar rental history is more appealing than someone with great credit but a bad rental history. Vehicles and housing are very important to people, so they are likely to prioritize them above credit card payments or hospital bills. Time will tell, but it seems like a solid move in my view, they can refine their model over time and likely find a solid customer base among those who wouldn't qualify on credit score alone."
},
{
"docid": "385139",
"title": "",
"text": "If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest. There are lots of deductions and credits that are phased out or eliminated as your income goes up. Perhaps you could find some set of tax laws that apply to you such that having an additional $1000 in interest expense lets you take a $300 deduction here and a $500 credit there, etc, and they add up to more than $1000. I don't know if that could actually happen, but the rules are complicated enough that, maybe. Any tax accountants here who can come up with such a scenario?"
},
{
"docid": "309298",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The PMI premium you pay is dependent on a very large number of variables in the finance market. Mortgage insurance, at the higher inter-bank levels, is handled with credit default swaps (the ones you've been hearing about on the news for the past 4 years), where the lender bundles a block of mortgages, takes them to a guarantor like AIG or Freddie Mac, and says \"\"We bet you that these mortgages will default this month, because the homeowners have little or no equity to deter them; if we win, you agree to swap these debts for their current face value\"\". The lender examines the mortgages, calculates the odds of a default severe enough that the bank would come to collect, using complex environmental heuristics, multiplies by the value of the potential payout, adds a little for their trouble, and says \"\"well, we'll take that bet if you pay us $X\"\". The bank takes the deal, then divvies up that cost among the mortgages and bills the homeowner for their share. The amount you pay for PMI can therefore depend on pretty much anything in this entire process; the exact outstanding amount and equity status of your loan, the similar status of other mortgages your loan will be bundled with for assessment, who the guarantor is, what exact heuristic they use to come up with an amount, the weighting the bank uses to divvy it up, and how much they actually pass on to you. Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that \"\"drivers who switched saved an average of $X\"\"; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no. While the overall amount of the payments does decrease, the PMI has gone up, and that's money you'll never see again just like interest (except you can deduct interest; not PMI). I would do the tax math; find out how much you could deduct over the next year in interest on your current loan, then on their proposed terms, and what the resulting tax bills will be from both. You may save monthly only to pay more than you saved to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. You're also free to negotiate. The worst they can do is stay firm on their offer, but they may take a second look and say \"\"you're right, that PMI is rather high, we'll try again and see if we can do better\"\". They can either negotiate with their insurer, or they can eat some of the PMI cost that they're currently passing on to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "398141",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Pomona CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Pomona CA 2869 Providence Way, Pomona, CA 91767 760-523-9659 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-pomona-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "56718",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \"\"profit distribution\"\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \"\"profits from S-Corp\"\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\""
},
{
"docid": "466587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\""
}
] |
5460 | Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate | [
{
"docid": "93248",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "327700",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have."
},
{
"docid": "29271",
"title": "",
"text": "Just general advice but you should pay off your credit cards and car loans before buying a house. Or you may be able to add some extra on to the mortgage to pay off your credit card and car debt right away. Credit card interest rates can be ten times the interest rates on mortgages and car loans are not far behind. The sooner you get them paid off completely the sooner you will have enough money for mortgage payments."
},
{
"docid": "278671",
"title": "",
"text": "If it costs more to fix the car than the car is worth, then those repairs are not worth it. Hit craigslist and look for another junker that runs, but is in your cash price range. Pay to get it looked at by a mechanic as a condition of sale. Use consumer reports to try and find a good model. Somebody in your position does not need a $15K car. You need a series of $2K or $4K cars that you will replace more often, but pay cash for. Car buying, especially from a dealer financed, place isn't how I would recommend building your credit back up. EDIT in response to your updates: Build your credit the smart way, by not paying interest charges. Use your lower limit card, and annually apply for more credit, which you use and pay off each and every month. Borrowing is not going to help you. Just because you can afford to make payments, doesn't automatically make payments a wise decision. You have to examine the value of the loan, not what the payments are. Shop for a good price, shop for a good rate, then purchase. The amount you can pay every month should only be a factor than can kill the deal, not allow it. Pay cash for your vehicle until you can qualify for a low cost loan from a credit union or a bank. It is a waste of money and time to pay a penalty interest rate because you want to build your credit. Time is what will heal your credit score. If you really must borrow for the purchase, you must secure a loan prior to shopping for a car. Visit a few credit unions and get pre-qualified. Once you have a pre-approved loan in place, you can let the deal try and beat your loan for a better deal. Don't make the mistake of letting the dealer do all the financing first."
},
{
"docid": "197796",
"title": "",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into."
},
{
"docid": "431953",
"title": "",
"text": "The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable. Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds? Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure & services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal & state governments via income tax on the interest."
},
{
"docid": "263649",
"title": "",
"text": "An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is."
},
{
"docid": "466161",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating. As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited. There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were. In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of \"\"live and learn\"\"!\""
},
{
"docid": "136047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "321490",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)"
},
{
"docid": "202527",
"title": "",
"text": "Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€"
},
{
"docid": "97642",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized. On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load."
},
{
"docid": "114082",
"title": "",
"text": "The simple answer is absolutely. With the parameters you quote, if you will pay off the loan in 82 months or less, you will be ahead taking the variable rate. You have put your finger on the important question as well. The higher initial interest is buying insurance against rates rising if you don't pay off the loan within 82 months. I suspect the contract loan term is much longer than that, because otherwise a variable rate does not make sense. You need to assess whether the insurance you are buying is worth the premium. You can look at what the formula for the variable rate would set the rate at today. It is probably somewhat higher than the 3.79%. That will tell you how much rates have to rise to make the variable rate go above 5.02%. Note that if the loan term is around 160 months (and it could well be 180 months, 15 years) you can afford the interest to rise to about 6.2% for the last half and you will still be dollars ahead. It could even rise higher if you discount expenses in the future. You could also hope that if inflation rises to make interest rates rise like that you will get cost of living raises that make this easy to pay."
},
{
"docid": "551423",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\""
},
{
"docid": "233892",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged."
},
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"docid": "344812",
"title": "",
"text": "Anytime you borrow money at that rate, you are getting ripped off. One way to rectify this situation is to pay the car off as soon as possible. You can probably get a second job that makes $1000 per month. If so you will be done in 4 months. Do that and you will pay less than $300 in interest. It is a small price to pay for an important lesson. While you can save some money refinancing, working and paying the loan off is, in my opinion a better option. Even if you can get the rate down to 12%, you are still giving too much money to banks."
},
{
"docid": "264228",
"title": "",
"text": "Having a loan also represents risk. IMHO you should retire the loan as soon as feasible in most cases. JoeTaxpayer, as usual, raises a good point. With numbers as he is quoting, it is tolerable to have a loan around on a asset such as a home. While he did not mention it, I am sure that his rate is fixed. If the interest rate is variable: pay it off. If it is a student loan: pay it off. If you can have it retired quickly: pay it off and get the bank off your payroll. If it is consumer debt: pay it off."
},
{
"docid": "188015",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!"
}
] |
5460 | Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate | [
{
"docid": "184337",
"title": "",
"text": "If it's possible in your case to get such a loan, then sure, providing the loan fees aren't in excess of the interest rate difference. Auto loans don't have the fees mortgages do, but check the specific loan you're looking at - it may have some fees, and they'd need to be lower than the interest rate savings. Car loans can be tricky to refinance, because of the value of a used car being less than that of a new car. How much better your credit is likely determines how hard this would be to get. Also, how much down payment you put down. Cars devalue 20% or so instantly (a used car with 5 miles on it tends to be worth around 80% of a new car's cost), so if you put less than 20% down, you may be underwater - meaning the principal left on the loan exceeds the value of the car (and so you wouldn't be getting a fully secured loan at that point). However, if your loan amount isn't too high relative to the value of the car, it should be possible. Check out various lenders in advance; also check out non-lender sites for advice. Edmunds.com has some of this laid out, for example (though they're an industry-based site so they're not truly unbiased). I'd also recommend using this to help you pay off the loan faster. If you do refinance to a lower rate, consider taking the savings and sending it to the lender - i.e., keeping your payment the same, just lowering the interest charge. That way you pay it off faster."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"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": "187010",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\""
},
{
"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": "106495",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two solutions. One is financially better, the other is psychologically better. Financially better: You should pay off loans in the order of interest rate, so the 9% first, then the six percent, then the 3-4%. If you pay back $1000, the first one saves you $90 a year in interest, the second saves you $60, the third $30-$40 a year. Every year until everything is paid back. Psychologically better: Some people have psychological problems paying back debt, and it is better for them to pay back small loans first. If you feel better having two loans instead of three, and feeling better makes you able to save money and pay back the other loans, while having three loans would make you depressed and unable to make savings - pay back the smaller loan. If you don't have that kind of problem, use the \"\"financially better\"\" method.\""
},
{
"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": "77052",
"title": "",
"text": "Your rate of return for paying off this loan is 9%, and that's guaranteed. For reference, the best rate of return on a 10-year FDIC-insured certificate of deposit today is 3%. There's definitely something out there with better returns than paying off your loans, but there's definitely not going to be anything with better risk-adjusted returns than paying off your loans. Investors dream of guaranteed 9% rates of return. If you had something that could provide a guaranteed 9% rate of return, wannabe investors would be lining up at your door and tripping over each other to outbid each other until it actually closer to a 3% rate of return. :P (Postscript. Depending on whether your loans are tax-deductible and what your inflation expectations are, you could adjust those rates to make the comparison more accurate. But at 3% vs 9% the picture's pretty clear.)"
},
{
"docid": "571246",
"title": "",
"text": "To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians."
},
{
"docid": "680",
"title": "",
"text": "So one approach would be purely mathematical: look at whichever has the higher interest rate and pay it first. Another approach is to ignore the math (since the interest savings difference between a mortgage and student loan is likely small anyways) and think about what your goals are. Do you like having a student loan payment? Would you prefer to get rid of it as quickly as possible? How would it feel to cut the balance in HALF in one shot? If it were me, I would pay the student loan as fast as possible. Student loans are not cancellable or bankruptable, and once you get it paid off you can put that payment amount toward your house to get it paid off."
},
{
"docid": "136047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""
},
{
"docid": "29271",
"title": "",
"text": "Just general advice but you should pay off your credit cards and car loans before buying a house. Or you may be able to add some extra on to the mortgage to pay off your credit card and car debt right away. Credit card interest rates can be ten times the interest rates on mortgages and car loans are not far behind. The sooner you get them paid off completely the sooner you will have enough money for mortgage payments."
},
{
"docid": "321490",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)"
},
{
"docid": "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": "188015",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "40522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\""
},
{
"docid": "399259",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment."
},
{
"docid": "597376",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "380382",
"title": "",
"text": "An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month."
},
{
"docid": "252019",
"title": "",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so."
}
] |
5460 | Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate | [
{
"docid": "21174",
"title": "",
"text": "Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "422704",
"title": "",
"text": "As the other answers indicate, if you look only at the clear mathematical formulas regarding your debts and their interest rates, then you'll see that it's better (less expensive) to pay off your student debt first. However, you must also take into account the value of your car, as it is an asset. The older your car gets, the less it's worth. The more your car gets used and worn out, the less it's worth. Cars depreciate at about 15% per year on average. However, you're continuing to pay the same amount of money to keep a decreasingly valuable asset. Now, you also have to include the fact that you may be required to carry full-coverage car insurance, versus liability insurance. This can represent an increase in spending if you'd prefer to have liability only. With insurance in the picture, you should also be thinking about the possibility that something could happen to your vehicle that causes it to be worth less than you owe, or just worthless. If such an event happens, then you may have more difficulty acquiring a replacement vehicle. I, personally, don't find the increase in total interest paid on student loans to offset the other consideration regarding the value of a car. I'm in a similar situation as you (except your values are all about double what mine are). The peace of mind I gain from being able to pay off the car more quickly, and use that money towards loans or whatever I want, is worth the interest I'll earn by not putting that money into the student loans instead. I also prefer the idea of being able to more easily use my vehicle as a trade in, in case I need to get a different vehicle to better suit my family size."
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"docid": "420727",
"title": "",
"text": "One way to analyze the opportunity cost of using a 401K loan would be to calculate your net worth after using a 401K loan. If your net worth increases then the 401K loan would be advisable. Note that the calculations provided below do not take into account tax considerations. A net worth calculation is where you add all your assets and then subtract all your liabilities. The resulting number is your net worth. First, calculate the net worth of not taking the loan and simply paying the credit card interest. This means you only pay the interest on the credit card. In addition to the parameters identified in your question, two additional parameters will need to be considered: Cash and the market rate of return on the 401K. Scenario 1 (only pay credit card interest): After 12 months all you have paid is the interest on the credit card. The 401K balance is untouched so it will hopefully grow. The balance on the credit card remains at the end of 12 months. Scenario 2 (use 401K loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from your 401K to pay the credit card balance. You will have to pay $5,000 plus the 401K interest rate back into your 401K account. Use the following equation to determine when Scenario 2 increases your net worth more than scenario 1: Thus, if your credit card interest rate is greater than the rate you can earn on your 401K then use the 401K loan to pay off the credit card balance. Another scenario that should be considered: borrow money from somewhere else to pay off the credit card balance. Scenario 3 (external loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from somewhere besides your 401K to pay off the credit card balance. The following is used to determine if you should use an external loan over the 401K loan: This means you should use an external loan if you can obtain an interest rate less than the rate of return you can earn on your 401K. The same methodology can be used to compare Scenario 3 to Scenario 1."
},
{
"docid": "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": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
},
{
"docid": "503723",
"title": "",
"text": "When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism."
},
{
"docid": "252019",
"title": "",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so."
},
{
"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": "155843",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Loan officer here. Yes. You pay the per diem. I'd recommend not paying it off for like 6 months. You can pay it down to basically nothing and then hold it for six months and pay it off. Better for credit. If it's a simple interest rate, most car loans are, multiply the current principal balance by the interest rate and divide it by 365. That's the per diem or daily interest. For example, \"\"10,000 dollar auto loan at 3%. 10000*0.03= 300. 300/365= 0.82. So each day the balance is 10k the loan cost 82 cents. So in a month, your first payment is 100 dollars, 24.65 goes to interest 75.35 goes to principal. Then the new principal is 9924.65. So the next month, another 30 days with the new per diem of 0.815, the 100 payment is 75.50 in principal 24.50 in interest and so on.\""
},
{
"docid": "136047",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""
},
{
"docid": "63690",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend."
},
{
"docid": "344812",
"title": "",
"text": "Anytime you borrow money at that rate, you are getting ripped off. One way to rectify this situation is to pay the car off as soon as possible. You can probably get a second job that makes $1000 per month. If so you will be done in 4 months. Do that and you will pay less than $300 in interest. It is a small price to pay for an important lesson. While you can save some money refinancing, working and paying the loan off is, in my opinion a better option. Even if you can get the rate down to 12%, you are still giving too much money to banks."
},
{
"docid": "380382",
"title": "",
"text": "An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month."
},
{
"docid": "296607",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method."
},
{
"docid": "599499",
"title": "",
"text": "This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)"
},
{
"docid": "315974",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have a 20,000 balance and a 8.75% interest rate, you should be paying between $145 and $150 in interest each month, with the balance going to principal. (0.0875/12=0.007292, and that times 20,000 is 145.83; as interest is compounded daily, it'll be a little higher than that.) If the minimum is below $145, then you are not covering the interest; I suspect that is what is happening here, and they're reporting interest paid that wasn't covered in a prior month (assuming you have some months where you only pay the statement minimum, which is less than the total accrued interest). Assuming you're in the US (or most other western countries), your loan servicer should be explaining the exact amount each payment that goes to principal and interest. I recommend calling them up and finding out exactly why it's not consistent; what should be happening, assuming you pay more than the amount of interest each month, is the interest should go down (very) slowly each month and the amount paying off principal should go up (also slowly). EG: Etc., until eventually the interest is zero and your loan is paid off. It probably won't go this quickly for this size of loan - you're only paying off a tiny percentage of principal each month, $50/$20000 or 1/400th - so you won't make too much headway at this rate. Even adding another $25 would make a huge difference to the length of the loan and the amount of interest paid, but that's another story. You will eventually at this rate pay off the loan (at $200 a month for all 12 months); this isn't dissimilar to a 30 year mortgage in terms of percent interest to principal (in fact, it's better!). $50 a month times twelve is $600; 400 payments would take care of it (so a bit over 30 years). However, as you go you pay more principal and less interest, so you will actually pay it off in 15 years if you continue paying $200 a month exactly. What you may be seeing in your case is a combination of things: In months you pay less (ie, $100, say), the extra $45 in interest needs to go somewhere. It effectively becomes part of the principal, but from what I've seen that doesn't always happen directly - ie, they account it differently at least for a short time (up to a year, in my experience). This is because of tax laws, if I understand correctly - the amount you pay in interest is tax-deductible, but not the amount of the principal - so it's important for you to have as much called 'interest' as possible. Thus, if you pay $100 this month and $200 next month, that total of $300 is paying ~$290 of interest and $10 of principal, just as if you'd paid it $150 each month. If you had any penalties, such as for late payments, those come out off the top before interest; they may sometimes take that out as well. All in all, I strongly suggest having an enforced minimum (on your end) of the interest amount at least; that prevents you from being in a situation where your loan grows. If you can't always hit $200, that's fine; but at least hit $150 every single month. Otherwise you have a never ending cycle of student loan debt that you really don't want to be in. Separately, on the $1000 payment: As long as you make sure it's not assigned in such a way that the lender only accepts a month's worth at a time (which shouldn't happen, but there are shady lenders), it shouldn't matter what is called 'principal' and what is called 'interest'. The interest won't go up just because you're making a separate payment (it'll go down!). The portion that goes to interest will go to paying off the amount of interest you owe from the time of your last payment, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, plus principal. You won't have the option of not paying that interest, and it doesn't really matter anyway - it's all something you owe and all accruing interest, it only really matters for accounting and taxes. Double check with your lender (on the phone AND on their website, if possible) that overpayments are not penalized and are applied to principal immediately (or within a few days anyway) and you should be fine."
},
{
"docid": "263649",
"title": "",
"text": "An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is."
},
{
"docid": "327700",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have."
}
] |
5460 | Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate | [
{
"docid": "108514",
"title": "",
"text": "Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "106495",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two solutions. One is financially better, the other is psychologically better. Financially better: You should pay off loans in the order of interest rate, so the 9% first, then the six percent, then the 3-4%. If you pay back $1000, the first one saves you $90 a year in interest, the second saves you $60, the third $30-$40 a year. Every year until everything is paid back. Psychologically better: Some people have psychological problems paying back debt, and it is better for them to pay back small loans first. If you feel better having two loans instead of three, and feeling better makes you able to save money and pay back the other loans, while having three loans would make you depressed and unable to make savings - pay back the smaller loan. If you don't have that kind of problem, use the \"\"financially better\"\" method.\""
},
{
"docid": "188015",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "249054",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\""
},
{
"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": "589582",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest."
},
{
"docid": "194557",
"title": "",
"text": "Are there any (monthly) administrative fees on those loans that are charged separately? If not, you should just pay as much as you can as quick as you can to get the loan amount down on those loans with the highest interest rate. If there are no separate fees on the loans, then it's just a lump of money with some interest rate. The smaller loans will eventually drop away one by one, have a celebration to remark the occasion when that happens. I assume the payment is split evenly between the loans? Restructure if you get a better deal from someplace. Delay buying new stuff until you get the loan amount down. Pay as much as you can as quickly as you can, but keep enough money in your pocket to survive a month or two, so that you don't need to get any more loans in case something unexpected happens."
},
{
"docid": "227549",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't agree with others regarding paying off debt ASAP. You only have auto loan and auto loans are actually good for your credit score. With a mere $6k balance, it is not like you are going to have a problem paying off the loan. Not only that you will build your credit score and this will come in handy when you are purchasing a home. With the Federal Reserve setting the interest rate at 0% until 2015, I can't understand why people would pay off anything ASAP. As long as you don't have revolving credit card balances, you are in the clear. I don't know your salary nor how big your porfolio is but I would save 5 months expense in cash and dump the rest in precious metals. Holding cash is the worst thing you could be doing (unless you predict a deflation). You said you already have 40% in precious metals. You are already way ahead of other 95% of Americans by protecting your purchasing power. Follow your gut. The stormg is coming and it's not going to get any better."
},
{
"docid": "291031",
"title": "",
"text": "Let me give you the benefit of my experience. I paid a bunch of points (4) when I bought my first house for similar reasons than you mentioned including: Why I wish I hadn't: (1) Interest rates plummeted (not as likely to happen today) and I wound up refinancing the loan within the fist 10 years negating the savings that I would have had over the life of the loan. Also, it made me feel stupid for paying close to $5K to knock 1% or so off the loan rate only to have an even lower rate offered to me with no points within a decade. (2) I didn't take into account that I'm the type of person who would try to pay the loan off early, and I did. Way Early. So even if I hadn't refinanced, the extra points were really a waste of money. (3) In the US, at least, you can't always deduct ALL of the money you paid in points in the first year. You may have to spread that deduction over several years. (4) You are right about the alternative being better (investing the points), since the benefit of paying them is at most 1-2% on your loan, you don't even need a 6-7% return to make it a better deal to invest them. HOWEVER, I get skeptical when people compare paying interest to returns on invested money like that. If you don't pay the points will you actually invest that money for the 30 years (or whatever the term of the loan is)? It's easy to say that when you are talking theoreticals, but $5k in your pocket is also pretty tempting when the deal is done. Good luck with the new house!"
},
{
"docid": "344812",
"title": "",
"text": "Anytime you borrow money at that rate, you are getting ripped off. One way to rectify this situation is to pay the car off as soon as possible. You can probably get a second job that makes $1000 per month. If so you will be done in 4 months. Do that and you will pay less than $300 in interest. It is a small price to pay for an important lesson. While you can save some money refinancing, working and paying the loan off is, in my opinion a better option. Even if you can get the rate down to 12%, you are still giving too much money to banks."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "287157",
"title": "",
"text": "I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card."
},
{
"docid": "431953",
"title": "",
"text": "The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable. Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds? Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure & services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal & state governments via income tax on the interest."
},
{
"docid": "233892",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged."
},
{
"docid": "104857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\""
},
{
"docid": "82472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\""
},
{
"docid": "77052",
"title": "",
"text": "Your rate of return for paying off this loan is 9%, and that's guaranteed. For reference, the best rate of return on a 10-year FDIC-insured certificate of deposit today is 3%. There's definitely something out there with better returns than paying off your loans, but there's definitely not going to be anything with better risk-adjusted returns than paying off your loans. Investors dream of guaranteed 9% rates of return. If you had something that could provide a guaranteed 9% rate of return, wannabe investors would be lining up at your door and tripping over each other to outbid each other until it actually closer to a 3% rate of return. :P (Postscript. Depending on whether your loans are tax-deductible and what your inflation expectations are, you could adjust those rates to make the comparison more accurate. But at 3% vs 9% the picture's pretty clear.)"
},
{
"docid": "264228",
"title": "",
"text": "Having a loan also represents risk. IMHO you should retire the loan as soon as feasible in most cases. JoeTaxpayer, as usual, raises a good point. With numbers as he is quoting, it is tolerable to have a loan around on a asset such as a home. While he did not mention it, I am sure that his rate is fixed. If the interest rate is variable: pay it off. If it is a student loan: pay it off. If you can have it retired quickly: pay it off and get the bank off your payroll. If it is consumer debt: pay it off."
},
{
"docid": "323475",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)"
}
] |
5460 | Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate | [
{
"docid": "463885",
"title": "",
"text": "Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "106495",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two solutions. One is financially better, the other is psychologically better. Financially better: You should pay off loans in the order of interest rate, so the 9% first, then the six percent, then the 3-4%. If you pay back $1000, the first one saves you $90 a year in interest, the second saves you $60, the third $30-$40 a year. Every year until everything is paid back. Psychologically better: Some people have psychological problems paying back debt, and it is better for them to pay back small loans first. If you feel better having two loans instead of three, and feeling better makes you able to save money and pay back the other loans, while having three loans would make you depressed and unable to make savings - pay back the smaller loan. If you don't have that kind of problem, use the \"\"financially better\"\" method.\""
},
{
"docid": "315974",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have a 20,000 balance and a 8.75% interest rate, you should be paying between $145 and $150 in interest each month, with the balance going to principal. (0.0875/12=0.007292, and that times 20,000 is 145.83; as interest is compounded daily, it'll be a little higher than that.) If the minimum is below $145, then you are not covering the interest; I suspect that is what is happening here, and they're reporting interest paid that wasn't covered in a prior month (assuming you have some months where you only pay the statement minimum, which is less than the total accrued interest). Assuming you're in the US (or most other western countries), your loan servicer should be explaining the exact amount each payment that goes to principal and interest. I recommend calling them up and finding out exactly why it's not consistent; what should be happening, assuming you pay more than the amount of interest each month, is the interest should go down (very) slowly each month and the amount paying off principal should go up (also slowly). EG: Etc., until eventually the interest is zero and your loan is paid off. It probably won't go this quickly for this size of loan - you're only paying off a tiny percentage of principal each month, $50/$20000 or 1/400th - so you won't make too much headway at this rate. Even adding another $25 would make a huge difference to the length of the loan and the amount of interest paid, but that's another story. You will eventually at this rate pay off the loan (at $200 a month for all 12 months); this isn't dissimilar to a 30 year mortgage in terms of percent interest to principal (in fact, it's better!). $50 a month times twelve is $600; 400 payments would take care of it (so a bit over 30 years). However, as you go you pay more principal and less interest, so you will actually pay it off in 15 years if you continue paying $200 a month exactly. What you may be seeing in your case is a combination of things: In months you pay less (ie, $100, say), the extra $45 in interest needs to go somewhere. It effectively becomes part of the principal, but from what I've seen that doesn't always happen directly - ie, they account it differently at least for a short time (up to a year, in my experience). This is because of tax laws, if I understand correctly - the amount you pay in interest is tax-deductible, but not the amount of the principal - so it's important for you to have as much called 'interest' as possible. Thus, if you pay $100 this month and $200 next month, that total of $300 is paying ~$290 of interest and $10 of principal, just as if you'd paid it $150 each month. If you had any penalties, such as for late payments, those come out off the top before interest; they may sometimes take that out as well. All in all, I strongly suggest having an enforced minimum (on your end) of the interest amount at least; that prevents you from being in a situation where your loan grows. If you can't always hit $200, that's fine; but at least hit $150 every single month. Otherwise you have a never ending cycle of student loan debt that you really don't want to be in. Separately, on the $1000 payment: As long as you make sure it's not assigned in such a way that the lender only accepts a month's worth at a time (which shouldn't happen, but there are shady lenders), it shouldn't matter what is called 'principal' and what is called 'interest'. The interest won't go up just because you're making a separate payment (it'll go down!). The portion that goes to interest will go to paying off the amount of interest you owe from the time of your last payment, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, plus principal. You won't have the option of not paying that interest, and it doesn't really matter anyway - it's all something you owe and all accruing interest, it only really matters for accounting and taxes. Double check with your lender (on the phone AND on their website, if possible) that overpayments are not penalized and are applied to principal immediately (or within a few days anyway) and you should be fine."
},
{
"docid": "595383",
"title": "",
"text": "It sort of sounds like you want to contradictory things: (1) to fix your credit so you will be able to get loans and (2) to have more money available to spend now. It sounds like the latter is probably not possible. Not without getting into a worse situation than you are currently in (based on what you have written the next step is payday loans and the like, which is basically financial suicide). Fixing your credit is simple. It's just not fun. Cut your spending. Cut it way, way, way down. You will certainly have to change your lifestyle. I'd suggest taking a second job. Make the minimum payment on everything, then put all your extra money toward the most pressing things: I would focus on the former. As you pay down your debt your utilization will go down, and this will raise your score automatically. When you pay off your highest interest rate debt, don't change your spending. Instead put everything you were putting to that to the next highest debt you have. Continue until your highest interest rate loan is at or below the mortgage rate. When you get to this point you will notice that your credit score is vastly better and you are no longer spending all your money on interest. You will probably be in a position to buy a home. And you will have the satisfaction of knowing you did it yourself, rather than having a bankruptcy judge force you to change your lifestyle. A note on the items in collections: make sure they are all legit. If any are wrong, it is pretty straightforward to contest them with the credit bureaus and get them taken off. Things in collections will drop your score severely."
},
{
"docid": "194557",
"title": "",
"text": "Are there any (monthly) administrative fees on those loans that are charged separately? If not, you should just pay as much as you can as quick as you can to get the loan amount down on those loans with the highest interest rate. If there are no separate fees on the loans, then it's just a lump of money with some interest rate. The smaller loans will eventually drop away one by one, have a celebration to remark the occasion when that happens. I assume the payment is split evenly between the loans? Restructure if you get a better deal from someplace. Delay buying new stuff until you get the loan amount down. Pay as much as you can as quickly as you can, but keep enough money in your pocket to survive a month or two, so that you don't need to get any more loans in case something unexpected happens."
},
{
"docid": "202527",
"title": "",
"text": "Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€"
},
{
"docid": "571246",
"title": "",
"text": "To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians."
},
{
"docid": "104857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\""
},
{
"docid": "187010",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\""
},
{
"docid": "564408",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers in your comments are accurate, you have $2400/month \"\"extra\"\" after paying your expenses. I assume this includes loan payments. You said you have $3k in savings and a $2900 \"\"monthly nut\"\", so only one month of living expenses in savings. In my opinion, your first goal should be to put 100% of your extra money towards savings each month, until you have six months of living expenses saved. That's $2,900 * 6 or $17,400. Since you have $3K already that means you need $14,400 more, which is exactly six months @ $2,400/month. Next I would pay off your $4K for the bedroom furniture. I don't know the terms you got, but usually if you are not completely paid off when it comes time to pay interest, the rate is very high and you have to pay interest not just going forward, but from the inception of the loan (YMMV--check your loan terms). You may want to look into consolidating your high interest loans into a single loan at a lower rate. Barring that, I would put 100% of my extra monthly income toward your 10% loan until its paid off, and then your 9.25% loan until that's paid off. I would not consider investing in any non-tax-advantaged vehicle until those two loans (at minimum) were paid off. 9.25% is a very good guaranteed return on your money. After that I would continue the strategy of aggressively paying the maximum per month toward your highest interest loans until they are all paid off (with the possible exception of the very low rate Sallie Mae loans). However, I'm probably more conservative than your average investor, and I have a major aversion to paying interest. :)\""
},
{
"docid": "213907",
"title": "",
"text": "It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time."
},
{
"docid": "321490",
"title": "",
"text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)"
},
{
"docid": "263649",
"title": "",
"text": "An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is."
},
{
"docid": "105345",
"title": "",
"text": "An amortization schedule is often used to produce identical payments for the term (repayment period) of a loan, resulting in the principal being paid off and the debt retired at the end of the loan. This is in contrast to an interest only, or balloon loan. These loans require little or no payment against the balance of the loan, requiring the loan to be paid indefinitely if there is no term, or requiring the loan to be entirely paid off from cash or a new loan at the end of the term. A basic amortization formula can be derived from the compound interest formula: This formula comes from the Wikipedia article on amortization. The basics of the formula are the periodic payment amount, A (your monthly payment), can be determined by the principal loan, P, the rate, r, and the number of payments, n. Lenders lend money to make a profit on the interest. They'd like to get back all the money they lent out. Amortization schedules are popular because the fixed low payments make it easier for borrowers to pay the loan off eventually. They also tend to be very profitable for lenders, especially at the start of the term, because they make a lot of profit on interest, just like the start of your mortgage. The principal of a mortgage has more meaning than the principal of a revolving debt credit card. The mortgage principal is fixed at the start, and represents the value of the collateral property that is your home. You could consider the amount of principal paid to be the percentage of your home that you actually own (as part of your net worth calculation). A credit card has a new balance each month depending on how much you charge and how much you pay off. Principal has less meaning in this case, because there is no collateral to compare against, and the balance will change monthly. In this case, the meaning of the amortization schedule on your credit card is how long it will take you to pay off the balance if you stop charging and pay at the proscribed payment level over the term described. Given the high interest rate on credit cards, you may end up paying twice as much for goods in the long run if you follow your lenders schedule. Amortizing loans are common for consumer loans, unless a borrower is seeking out the lowest possible monthly payment. Lenders recognize that people will eventually die, and want to be paid off before that happens. Balloon and interest only bonds and loans are more commonly issued by businesses and governments who are (hopefully) investing in capital improvements that will pay off in the long run. Thousands of people and businesses have gone bankrupt in this financial crisis because their interest only loans reached term, and no one was willing to lend them money anymore to replace their existing loan."
},
{
"docid": "541856",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up. What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them."
},
{
"docid": "344812",
"title": "",
"text": "Anytime you borrow money at that rate, you are getting ripped off. One way to rectify this situation is to pay the car off as soon as possible. You can probably get a second job that makes $1000 per month. If so you will be done in 4 months. Do that and you will pay less than $300 in interest. It is a small price to pay for an important lesson. While you can save some money refinancing, working and paying the loan off is, in my opinion a better option. Even if you can get the rate down to 12%, you are still giving too much money to banks."
},
{
"docid": "98294",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:"
},
{
"docid": "680",
"title": "",
"text": "So one approach would be purely mathematical: look at whichever has the higher interest rate and pay it first. Another approach is to ignore the math (since the interest savings difference between a mortgage and student loan is likely small anyways) and think about what your goals are. Do you like having a student loan payment? Would you prefer to get rid of it as quickly as possible? How would it feel to cut the balance in HALF in one shot? If it were me, I would pay the student loan as fast as possible. Student loans are not cancellable or bankruptable, and once you get it paid off you can put that payment amount toward your house to get it paid off."
},
{
"docid": "114082",
"title": "",
"text": "The simple answer is absolutely. With the parameters you quote, if you will pay off the loan in 82 months or less, you will be ahead taking the variable rate. You have put your finger on the important question as well. The higher initial interest is buying insurance against rates rising if you don't pay off the loan within 82 months. I suspect the contract loan term is much longer than that, because otherwise a variable rate does not make sense. You need to assess whether the insurance you are buying is worth the premium. You can look at what the formula for the variable rate would set the rate at today. It is probably somewhat higher than the 3.79%. That will tell you how much rates have to rise to make the variable rate go above 5.02%. Note that if the loan term is around 160 months (and it could well be 180 months, 15 years) you can afford the interest to rise to about 6.2% for the last half and you will still be dollars ahead. It could even rise higher if you discount expenses in the future. You could also hope that if inflation rises to make interest rates rise like that you will get cost of living raises that make this easy to pay."
},
{
"docid": "351954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With permanent contract in Germany you shouldn't have any problem getting a loan. It's even more important than how much do you earn. Generally, you should ask for a house mortgage (Baufinanzierungsdarlehen) with annuity as a type of credit to save on interest. Besides, you usually get a better conditions with a saving bank (Sparkasse) or a popular bank (Volksbank) situated in the area where your house is situated. You also shouldn't combine your credit with extra products (the simpler is the product, the better is for you), maybe I'll write later an extra piece on the common pitfalls in this regard. Probably, you could find a bank that would give you such a loan, but it would be very expensive. You should save at least 40%, because then the bank can refinance your loan cheaply and in return offer you a low interest. Taxes depend heavily on the place where you buy a house. When you buy it, you pay a tax between 3.5% and 6% (look up here). Then you pay a property tax (Grundsteuer), it depends on community how much do you pay, the leverage is called Hebesatz (here's example). Notary would cost ca. 1.5% of the house price. All and all, you should calculate with 10% A country-independent advice: if you want to save on interest in the long run, you should take an annuity loan with the shortest maturity. Pay attention to effective interest rate. Now to Germany specifics. Don't forget to ask about \"\"Sondertilgung\"\" (extra amortization) - an option to amortize additionaly. Usually, banks offer 5% Sondertilgung p.a. The interest-rate is usually fixed for 8 years (however, ask about it), this period is called Zinsbindung. It sound ridiculous, but in southern lands (Bayern, Baden-Württemberg) you usually get better conditions as in Berlin or Bremen. The gap could be as big as 0.5% p.a. of effective interest rate! In Germany they often use so-called \"\"anfängliche Tilgung\"\" (initial rate of amortizazion) as a parameter.\""
}
] |
5464 | Resources on Buying Rental Properties | [
{
"docid": "350399",
"title": "",
"text": "In no particular order - to help you on deciding whether to invest or not: Building Wealth One House at a Time Buy & Rent Foreclosures: 3 Million Net Worth, 22,000 Net Per Month, In 7 Years...You can too! Landlording on Auto-Pilot: A Simple, No-Brainer System for Higher Profits and Fewer Headaches and for when/if you actually decide to start: Investing in Real Estate I've read all the books above and they all have a little bit of information here and there to take out - although they have some redudency it is the good type you need to learn/know anyway. Hope this helps."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "445887",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\""
},
{
"docid": "309462",
"title": "",
"text": "New York City is high cost-of-living, and I have absolutely no clue why people live there. It's a tough place, and the taxes are oppressive. People buy a studio apartment for $150,000 that has 175 square feet (that's not a typo) plus a $700/month maintenance fee that continues after the mortgage is paid off. And that's just what the fee is now. Our rental house (which used to be our primary residence) at 1,300 square feet has a (15-year) mortgage payment of about $800, and $1,000 per year in property taxes. And my area isn't particularly low cost-of-living. High cost-of-living is just that. More money flies out the door just for the privilege of living there. You make good investments with real estate by buying property at a good price in a good location. Those deals are everywhere, but in high CoL locations you're probably more susceptible to price fluctuations which will trap you in your property if your mortgage goes underwater. Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I don't buy your recommendation to get property in high CoL areas. There are desirable low CoL places to live, too."
},
{
"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": "174987",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay down the lower balance on the rental property. Generally speaking, you are more likely to need/want to sell the rental house as business conditions change or if you need the money for some other purpose. If you pay down your primary residence first, you are building equity, but that equity isn't as liquid as equity in the rental. Also, in the US, you cannot deduct the interest on a rental property, so the net interest after taxes that you're paying on the rental narrows the gap between the 4.35% loan and the 5% loan."
},
{
"docid": "573552",
"title": "",
"text": "As Andy T says, it is very common for landlords to have a residential mortgage (typically capital + interest) on their own home, and a buy-to-let mortgage (typically interest-only) on each rental property that they own. However, before going down this route, you will need to do some homework. Buying and letting a property is covered by a fair amount of legislation and tax rules; and in the last couple of years, the amount of regulation has increased, as has the amount of tax you're likely to pay. Letting a property can be profitable, but you need to do the maths first, and make sure you do everything by the book. Using a reputable letting agent, at least for your first tenant, should help avoid common pitfalls. There are a number of good websites on this subject. Note that the rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all different, so make sure that you get the right information!"
},
{
"docid": "110367",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR"
},
{
"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": "417981",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\""
},
{
"docid": "306855",
"title": "",
"text": "A good way to find the rates of rental prices is to look what other landlords are charging for similar properties in your area. The proper investigation of property rental market should be make by using property listing platforms. The other method is online rent calculator. There are a bunch of them on the Web. Briefly speaking, the rent calculator uses industry data to look at the typical rent you might expect from a property in a post code. Remember that the rent you charge has to be at least equal to the cost of your monthly mortgage bill. When you’re deciding what to charge, don’t forget to factor in an estimate of repair costs, taxes, homeowners association fees and insurance."
},
{
"docid": "503942",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself"
},
{
"docid": "192540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\""
},
{
"docid": "401899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "565691",
"title": "",
"text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different."
},
{
"docid": "597679",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\""
},
{
"docid": "389179",
"title": "",
"text": "When you buy a property the house or the building goes down in value every year (it gets depreciated) similar to when you drive a new car out of the lot. However, it is the land that increases in value over time. As land becomes scarcer the value of land in that area will increase in value, as does land in sought after areas. If more people want to live in a particular suburb the land value will keep on increasing year after year. Sometimes established areas with houses built in the 1980s or even earlier can be worth much more than newly built areas. It comes down to the supply and demand of land and houses in a particular area. You might even get a situation where a run-down dilapidated house in a very sought after suburb sells for more than a brand new house in a less sought-after suburb nearby. Properties can be a very good investment and they can be a very poor investment. It can largely depend on the decisions you make in buying your investment property. The first thing you need to make a decision on is the location of the property. If you buy a property in a good area that is well sought after you can make good capital and rental returns over the long run. If you buy poorly in an area no one wants to live in then you might have problems renting it out or only be able to rent it out to bad tenants who cause damage, and you may not get any capital gains over many years. The second thing you need to decide on is when in the property cycle you buy the property. If you buy at the right time you can get higher rents and make some quick capital gains over a relatively short time. I can provide a personal example of this situation. I had bought a house (in Australia) in 2007 for $240,000 at a time when interests where at their highest (9%), no one was buying property and rents were on the increase (with low vacancy rates). Today, eight years after, we are getting $410 per week rent and the house next door (in worse condition than ours) has been put on the market asking for between $500,000 to $550,000 (most houses in the area had been selling during this year for over $500,000). So you can say that our house has more than doubled in 8 years. However, up to a few months ago houses were selling within 2 weeks of being listed. The house next door however, has been listed for over a month and has not had very much interest. So from this you can conclude that in 2007 we had bought near the bottom of the market, whilst now we are near the top of the market. What you also need to remember is that different areas of a country can have different cycles, so there is not just one property cycle but many property cycles in the same country."
},
{
"docid": "5602",
"title": "",
"text": "You're losing money. And a lot of it. Consider this: the inflation is 2-4% a year (officially, depending on your spending pattern your own rate might be quite higher). You earn about 1/2%. I.e.: You're losing 3% a year. Guaranteed. You can do much better without any additional risk. 0.1% on savings account? Why not 0.9%? On-line savings account (Ally, CapitalOne-360, American Express, E*Trade, etc) give much higher rates than what you have. Current Ally rates are 0.9% on a regular savings account. 9 times more than what you have, with no additional risk: its a FDIC insured deposit. You can get a slightly higher rate with CDs (0.97% at the same bank for 12 months deposit). IRA - why is it in CD's? Its the longest term investment you have, that's where you can and should take risks, to maximize your compounding returns. Not doing that is actually more risky to you because you're guaranteeing compounding loss, of the said 3% a year. On average, more volatile stock investments have shown to be not losing money over periods of decades, even if they do lose money over shorter periods. Rental - if you can buy a property that you would pay the same amount of money for as for a comparable rental - you should definitely buy. Your debt will be secured by the property, and since you're paying the same amount or less - you're earning the equity. There's no risk here, just benefits, which again you chose to forgo. In the worst case if you default and walk away from the property you lost exactly (or less) what you would have paid for a rental anyway. 14 years old car may be cheaper than 4 years old to buy, but consider the maintenance, licensing and repairs - will it not some up to more than the difference? In my experience - it is likely to. Bottom line - you think you're risk averse, but you're exactly the opposite of that."
},
{
"docid": "178501",
"title": "",
"text": "I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year"
},
{
"docid": "547196",
"title": "",
"text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary."
},
{
"docid": "477048",
"title": "",
"text": "You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility."
}
] |
5464 | Resources on Buying Rental Properties | [
{
"docid": "294549",
"title": "",
"text": "The book HOLD: How to Find, Buy, and Rent Houses for Wealth by Chader et al. was one of the best I've read on the subject. It has all of the basics, explanations, examples, and gives you real-life assumptions for your inputs when you do your analysis. It does contain some less-relevant information now that was more realistic before 2007, but it's a worthwhile read (or listen). They have some good starter worksheets, as well, on their website to help you do your analysis, which I found useful despite already having my own."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "401899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "320442",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants \"\"renting\"\" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people \"\"buying\"\" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month. (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem \"\"ridiculously high\"\" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed \"\"ridiculously high\"\". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to \"\"recover\"\" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are \"\"ridiculously expensive\"\" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode.\""
},
{
"docid": "108433",
"title": "",
"text": "While it may not be your preferred outcome, and doesn't eliminate the income, in the event you find yourself in the path described here you have a way to defer gains to the future. but I would then want to buy another house as a rental If you sell this house and buy another investment property (within strict time windows: 45 days to written contract and closed in 180 days), you can transfer your basis and defer your gains via what is called a 1031 like-kind exchange"
},
{
"docid": "456064",
"title": "",
"text": "Sell the house, in the scenario you describe he is using the property as an investment with a $250 per month buy-in. This investment doesn't make a return right now and when you add in the cost of dealing with the tenant (even if he doesn't have those cost now, he will when they move out)he is out of more than $250 a month and he has no direct knowledge that the value will definitely increase. He would be better spent selling the house and putting the funds into an investment, even a risky investment. It will have less maintenance cost associated with the risky investment than the rental property. Besides sitting on the property for 10-15 years would cost him 30-45k plus the cost of re-renting the house when empty.Not to mention the inevitable increases in taxes over that time which will either increase his deficit or eat up the rent increase he is able to charge. Don't take the loss on the sale, just short sale it and take the money and invest! One last thought... An alternative is to creatively finance a sale (take payments from a buyer until they can buy outright) that will cover the FULL mortgage and get him the price he needs. You can look up owner financing to find out more on how to do this. Hope this helps!"
},
{
"docid": "207815",
"title": "",
"text": "You will find Joe.E, that rents have increased considerably over the last 4 to 5 years in Australia. You can probably achieve rental yields of above 5% more than 20km from major Cities, however closer to cities you might get closer to 5% or under. In Western Sydney, we have been able to achieve rental yields close to 7%. We bought mainly in 2007 and 2008 when no one was buying and we were getting properties for 15% to 20% below market rates. As we bought cheap and rents were on the increase we were able to achieve higher rental yields. An example of one particular deal where we bought for $225K and rented for $300/wk giving us a yield of 6.9%. The rent is now $350/wk giving us a current yield of 8%, and with our interest rate at 6.3% and possibly heading down further, this property is positively geared and pays for itself plus provides us with some additional income. All our properties are yielding between 7.5% to 8.5% and are all positively geared. The capital gains might not be as high as with properties closer to the city, but even if we stopped working we wouldn't have to sell as they all provide us income after paying all expenses on associated with the properties. So in answer to your question I would be aiming for a property with a yield above 5% and preferably above 6%, as this will enable your property/ies to be positively geared at least after a couple of years if not straight away."
},
{
"docid": "380753",
"title": "",
"text": "The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent. According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%. Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source). According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent. If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment. The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times. I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment. For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me. Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years)."
},
{
"docid": "112271",
"title": "",
"text": "I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest. In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances. You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property. Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced. The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2. I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future. I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification. Don't put all of your money into one basket. This includes real estate. Like any other investment, real estate goes down too. In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year. While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio."
},
{
"docid": "534810",
"title": "",
"text": "The property buys understanding and advising the property proprietor of the date of the culmination of the development venture, flat, estate, house and office. We provide the best service of Real estate purchase and sale contracts. We typically prescribe that customers hold all property for the sake of a Panamanian partnership for resource security and pay to assess reasons. t ought to be noticed that Panamanian common law puts the weight of duty on the dealer to react to the purchaser for lawful and tranquil ownership."
},
{
"docid": "547196",
"title": "",
"text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary."
},
{
"docid": "315972",
"title": "",
"text": "You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!"
},
{
"docid": "557478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"with 150K € to invest to \"\"become a landlord\"\" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost.\""
},
{
"docid": "507029",
"title": "",
"text": "In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth. 3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds."
},
{
"docid": "110367",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR"
},
{
"docid": "273187",
"title": "",
"text": "why does it make sense financially to buy property and become a landlord? Because then your investment generates cash instead of just sitting idle. All taxes, fees and repairs aside it would take almost 21 years before I start making profits. No - your profit will be the rents that you collect (minus expenses). You still have an asset that is worth roughly what you paid for it (and might go up in value), so you don't need to recoup the entire cost of the property before making a profit. Compared to investing the same 150k in an ETF portfolio with conservative 4% in annual returns I would have made around 140k € after taxes in the same 21 years i.e. almost doubled the money. If you charge 600 € / month (and never miss a month of rental income), after 21 years you have made 151k € in rents plus you still have a property. That property is most likely going to be worth more than you paid for it, so you should have at least 300k € in assets. Having said all that, it does NOT always make sense to invest in rental property. Being a landlord can be a hard job, and there are many risks involved that are different that risks in financial investments."
},
{
"docid": "167896",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership."
},
{
"docid": "274147",
"title": "",
"text": "I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant. In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out. In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling. Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price. Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit. No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan."
},
{
"docid": "178501",
"title": "",
"text": "I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year"
},
{
"docid": "129364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So my read on the question is \"\"How do I invest 300k such that it earns me a 'living wage' without the ongoing grind inherent in most formal employment?\"\" Reading the other answers to date it looks like most of them are thinking in terms of investment accounts and trying to live off of the earnings from such. I wanted to throw out a couple of alternative choices that may be worth considering... The first is real-estate investing. $300k should allow you to pick up 2 or 3 single family dwellings with little or no mortgage. Turning them into rentals placed with a good property management company should easily pay their expenses and provide a consistent income with minimal effort/attention from you. Similar story with buying into multifamily housing or commercial real-estate. Your key concern here is picking the right market in which to buy and finding a reputable manager to handle the day to day issues on your behalf. Note that you are not overly concerned with the potential resale value of the property(s), but the probable rental income they can generate, these are separate concerns that may not align with each other. Second is buying/founding a business that has a general manager other than yourself. Franchise ownership may be a potential option for you under the circumstances. The key concern here is picking the business, location, and manager that make you comfortable in terms of the risk involved. You need the place to make enough money to pay for itself and the salary of everyone working there, with enough left over for you to live on. Sounds easy enough, but not so much in practice. Generally you can expect at least a few years of being hands on and watching things very closely to make sure it is going the way you want it to. Finding a mentor who has done this type of transition before to walk you through it would be strongly advised. So would preparing yourself for a failure or two before you work out the exact combination of factors that work for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "324386",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as \"\"house hacking\"\", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the \"\"upkeep work\"\", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself. It sounds like you're still a ways away from having enough for even an FHA down payment, which gives you a great opportunity to find and talk with some local folks who already manage rental properties in your area (for example, you might look for a local chapter of the national Real Estate Investment Association), to get a sense of what's really involved.\""
}
] |
5464 | Resources on Buying Rental Properties | [
{
"docid": "86691",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would also suggest finding the training resource within your state for real estate agent license exam prep... When I was getting started, I took the \"\"101\"\" level course and it was worth the few hundred bucks for the overview I gleaned.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "315972",
"title": "",
"text": "You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!"
},
{
"docid": "321492",
"title": "",
"text": "Excellent Holiday Properties in Vale do Lobo Vale do Lobo has two celebrated golf resorts and offer comprehensive facilities to the vacationers. There are many Holiday properties in Vale Do Lobo that the travelers can book for their stay. These websites provide a comprehensive range of choice of the Vale Do Lobo Holiday Villa Rentals. There are many holiday villas and apartments to rent in Vale Do Lobo. The holiday properties are located in prime location and offer all imperative facilities, luxuries, and comfort for making the stay convenient and comfortable for the vacationers. They provide the pictures of the property that make it easy for selecting the best Vale Do Lobo Holiday Apartment Rentals. www.simply-algarve.com"
},
{
"docid": "401899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "178501",
"title": "",
"text": "I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year"
},
{
"docid": "296355",
"title": "",
"text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners."
},
{
"docid": "320442",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants \"\"renting\"\" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people \"\"buying\"\" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month. (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem \"\"ridiculously high\"\" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed \"\"ridiculously high\"\". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to \"\"recover\"\" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are \"\"ridiculously expensive\"\" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode.\""
},
{
"docid": "167896",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership."
},
{
"docid": "573552",
"title": "",
"text": "As Andy T says, it is very common for landlords to have a residential mortgage (typically capital + interest) on their own home, and a buy-to-let mortgage (typically interest-only) on each rental property that they own. However, before going down this route, you will need to do some homework. Buying and letting a property is covered by a fair amount of legislation and tax rules; and in the last couple of years, the amount of regulation has increased, as has the amount of tax you're likely to pay. Letting a property can be profitable, but you need to do the maths first, and make sure you do everything by the book. Using a reputable letting agent, at least for your first tenant, should help avoid common pitfalls. There are a number of good websites on this subject. Note that the rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all different, so make sure that you get the right information!"
},
{
"docid": "27433",
"title": "",
"text": "At its best, a HOA provides the same benefits as a condo association -- shared investment in the shared neighborhood resources/environment. At its worst, a HOA has the same problems as a condo association, potentially creating unreasonable constraints on what you can or can't do with your own property because your decisions might affect the value of someone else's property or demanding shared investment in something you don't consider worthwhile. Basically, if an HOA is active in your neighborhood, (A) make sure you know its history and biases before you buy, and (B) make sure you're active in it, or you may be unpleasantly surprised by its decisions."
},
{
"docid": "573301",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The buy-to-rent investment bubble created (in some markets) a large number of new housing starts often exceeding the available demand. Since people were investing in the capital gain, they didn't mind whether a place was rented or not. Many places stood empty at the prices investors wished to charge. In the UK where building restrictions are so dire that few new houses can be built, new house production is less than market demand which keeps up rental prices. There just isn't any stock. In the US, where construction is more liberal, rental prices can fall as new stock enters the market. A driver will be where the sales market dries up and owners must rent to cover at least some of their mortgage losses. Or, as Joel points out, if a major employer which dominates a small town, leaves. Many old industrial towns feature both low rentals and plenty of empty, low-priced property. Liverpool, in the UK, features entire empty neighbourhoods all boarded up. If you're looking to track metrics on this simply look at migration patterns. Where large numbers of people are moving \"\"towards\"\" prices (and rentals) will rise. Where people are moving \"\"away\"\" all prices fall.\""
},
{
"docid": "411375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is \"\"negative gearing\"\": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is.\""
},
{
"docid": "477048",
"title": "",
"text": "You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility."
},
{
"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": "503942",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself"
},
{
"docid": "490888",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\""
},
{
"docid": "547196",
"title": "",
"text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary."
},
{
"docid": "3217",
"title": "",
"text": "I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise."
},
{
"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": "309462",
"title": "",
"text": "New York City is high cost-of-living, and I have absolutely no clue why people live there. It's a tough place, and the taxes are oppressive. People buy a studio apartment for $150,000 that has 175 square feet (that's not a typo) plus a $700/month maintenance fee that continues after the mortgage is paid off. And that's just what the fee is now. Our rental house (which used to be our primary residence) at 1,300 square feet has a (15-year) mortgage payment of about $800, and $1,000 per year in property taxes. And my area isn't particularly low cost-of-living. High cost-of-living is just that. More money flies out the door just for the privilege of living there. You make good investments with real estate by buying property at a good price in a good location. Those deals are everywhere, but in high CoL locations you're probably more susceptible to price fluctuations which will trap you in your property if your mortgage goes underwater. Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I don't buy your recommendation to get property in high CoL areas. There are desirable low CoL places to live, too."
}
] |
5503 | Tax considerations for selling a property below appraised value to family? | [
{
"docid": "146277",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "32784",
"title": "",
"text": "From personal experience: Loan Impact It does impact your ability to take out other loans (to an extent) Your first investment property is going to go against your debt to income levels, so if you take out a loan, you've essentially decreased the amount you can borrow before you hit a lender's debt to income ceiling. Two things about that: 1) I'm assuming you have a primary mortgage - if that's the case they will factor what you are already paying for your primary house + any car loans + any student loans, etc. Once you've successfully taken out a mortgage for your investment property, you're probably close to your debt to income ceiling for any other loans. 2) There is usually a 2 year time period where this will matter the most. Once you've rented out this property for 2 years, most financial institutions will consider a percentage of the rent as income. At this point you can then take on more debt if you choose. Other (Possibly Negative) Impacts and Considerations Maintenance Costs Renovations Turnovers Taxes and Insurance Downpayments and interest Income tax Advertising costs Property Management costs Closing costs and Legal fees Vacancies HOA fees Other (Possibly Positive) Impacts and Considerations Passive Income as long as the numbers are right and you have a good property manager Tax deductions (And depreciation) Rent has low correlation to the market Other investment alternatives: Stocks Reits (not directly comparable to investment properties) Long story short- can be a hassle but if the numbers are right, it can be a good investment. There's a series of articles further explaining these above listed components in detail."
},
{
"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": "206444",
"title": "",
"text": "Investment is very uncertain, so I believe that unless you have loads of money, you should not play around with houses for the sole purpose of investing. Here are the questions which I would consider to judge the situation. Note that this is based on the current situation in The Netherlands Income: Your income is 1800 a month nett, which means your gross annual income should be somewhere below 28500. Allowed mortgage amount: Your maximum morgage amount is then roughly 135000 Is it expensive?: Given your maximum morgage, buying a 200k appartment would consume pretty much all your cash. There is some cost of buying the appartment, so basically if you buy it, you will not have much cash to decorate or deal with unforseen maintenance. If you are conservative, I would say that buying a 175k appartment is financially much more relaxing in your situation. What will be the monthly expense?: Monthly mortgage payments will be about 450~500. So your cashflow will suffer a bit. The amount you actually 'burn' on interest in the early months is about 180 nett (assuming an interest rate just below 2% and tax deductions). There will be additional costs (more heating, long term maintenance etc.) so overall the amount of money you burn will be close to the amount of money you burn on rent. Of course over time there will be less interest, so this should go down. Value change: The value may go up or down, in the very long term I would bet on it going up, but on the short or medium term it is quite uncertain. If you may live there for less than a decade, value change is more of a risk than a benefit. Break even point: As you mention that you will buy a house for 200k, I will assume it is not in the heart of a major city, and that renting it out may not be very attractive. However, I will also assume that it is not the middle of nowhere, and that it will only take a reasonable amount of time to sell the house. So if you want to move out, you will probably sell it at a reasonable price. In this case a rule of thumb is that living in an affordable house is usually a good idea when you live there for more than 5 years. (Is it likely that you will find a partner in this period of time, and will you live at your place then, or somewhere else?) Buying a 200k appartment would leave you completely cashless after you move in, something I would not recommend unless you can depend on your parents for instance to 'bridge the gap' when your cashflow dries up. From a monthly expense point of view you are probably going to be OK, as long as you survive the short run. And financially it only makes sense if you are going to live there for a while, and are fairly confident in your position in the labour market. I would personally recommend you to think hard on your family situation, and only buy a house if it leaves you with some cash in your pocket."
},
{
"docid": "588479",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't have a direct answer for you, but here are some other things you might consider to help you decide on a course of action in addition to Joe's note about consulting a CPA... Get a couple contractors out to look the place over and give you some quotes on the work needed, most will do so for free, or a nominal fee. Everything about the extent and cost of repairs is complete guess work until you have some firm numbers. You might also consider getting an up-to-date appraisal, particularly if you can find someone willing to give you an \"\"after improvements\"\" estimate as well. The housing market has fluctuated a bunch in the last couple years, your current value may have shifted significantly from where you think it is if you haven't done one recently. You will definitely have to pay for this service, I would estimate around $500 based on one I got in St Louis a few months ago. You might also consider reaching out to a local property management company to find out where they think you would fall in the scope of the current rental market and what improvements they would recommend. You will probably want to be onsite to talk to any of the above people about the work they are proposing, and your intended goals, so figure some travel costs and time into your evaluation. As one of your noted concerns was the state of the roof, I can tell you that in St Louis County, and the spec sheet for most shingle manufacturers, you are limited to two layers of shingles, then the roof is supposed to be stripped and redone from the bare wood. Personally, I won't even do the second layer, I always go to bare wood and start over, if for no other reason than it gives me an opportunity to inspect the deck and deal with any minor problem areas before they become big problems. I don't know Greene County to know what the local code may be like, but odds are high that the shingle manufacture would not honor any warranty with this installation. Another potential gotcha that may be lurking out there is your ex may still have a lingering claim to the home if you go to sell it. I don't know the rules in Missouri off hand, but where I grew up (with family in the real estate and title insurance businesses) there was a law regarding homestead rights. If a spouse spent even one night in a property, they had an interest in it and an explicit waiver had to be signed to release said interest. Review your divorce settlement and/or contact your attorney to confirm your status in this regard. Also consider the potential of refinancing your mortgage to either reduce the payment, or get funds for the improvements/repairs. Final note, I understand wanting to help out a friend (I have done similar things more times than I can count), but seriously look at the situation and see if you can't get the rent or other compensation up to the level of the mortgage at least. You mentioned that you have belongings still on the property, what would a storage unit for said items cost? In terms of juggling the numbers you could potentially use that value as justification to adjust the friends rent as a caretaker fee without any issue. (Verify with your CPA) Talk to the friend and see if there are other parts of the job they would be willing and able to take on as consideration for the reduced rent (make sure you have at least a simple contract on any such agreement). Or if none of the above are sufficient to balance the numbers, see if they would be willing to take on an actual room mate to help make up the difference.\""
},
{
"docid": "26655",
"title": "",
"text": "\"even though they're only asking for 1/2 the money and have excellent credit that the mortgage company may not lend it to them if I'm over priced Yes. If the house's value, as determined by the appraisal, is less than the sale price, the bank will not finance the loan. Appraisals and the appraisal process have become much tighter since the Frannie and Freddie debacle. This fact is true regardless of amounts or credit history. Though this is happens somewhat rarely; typically if a seller and buyer agree to a price, this price is a reasonable value -- after all, that is nearly the definition of \"\"market value\"\". So, yes, it is true (and always true, for any financed purchase), but that shouldn't really affect your decision. If you try to sell for more than the appraisal, you will just lower the price to the appraised amount.\""
},
{
"docid": "209635",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\""
},
{
"docid": "410284",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Say the price is $200K. Would I, as a real estate investor, want to buy such a house? If the rent is $600, that's $7200/yr. \"\"the local property tax rate is levied on the tax base, and the applicable tax rate ranges from 0.40% to 0.76%\"\" so, I'll assume .5%, just $1,000. There are rules of thumb that say half the rent will go to maintenance and other costs, if that seems high, say just $2000. We're left with $4000/yr. Less than 2% on the $200K investment. Italian bonds are yielding 8%. As an investor, if I couldn't get more than $2000/mo gross rent, I would not buy the house for $200K. As a parent, I'd have the money invested, have $16K/yr of income and help support you without taking all the risk the real estate investor has. Note: your question and my answer are in dollars, but I acknowledge the Italy tag, and used Italy property tax. My tax is 1.6% of home value in my US city. Edit: per the comment below, the 8% is incorrect. The return on the house purchase doesn't change, of course, but the safe yields are not that high, currently, 1%.\""
},
{
"docid": "32576",
"title": "",
"text": "In regards to the legal recourse, no there is none. Also, despite your frustrations with Citi, it may not be their fault. Mortgage companies are now forced to select appraisers (essentially at random) through 3rd party Appraisal Resource Companies (ARCs). This randomization mandate from the government was issued in order to combat fraud, but it is really causing more trouble for homeowners because it took away appraiser accountability. Basically, there's nothing we can do to fire an appraiser anymore. I've had appraiser do terrible jobs, just blatantly wrong, and have gone the distance with the dispute process only to find they won't change the value. My favorite real-life example came from an appraiser who got the bedroom count wrong (4 instead of 5); yet he took pictures of 5 bedrooms. The one he excluded he stated it shouldn't count because it didn't have a closet. Problem is, it DID have a closet. I had the homeowner take pictures of all of the closets in his house, and send them in. He still refused to change the count. After close to 2 months of the dispute process, the ARC came in and changed the count, but did not chagne the value, stating that the room count didn't increase the sqft, and there would be no adjustment in value. I was floored. The only solution we had was to wait for the appraisal to expire, then order it again; which we did. The new appraiser got the count right, and surprisingly (not really), it came in at the right value... In regards to the value necessary to avoid MI, they are likely using 80%, but it's not based on your current balance vs the value, it's based on the new loan amount (which will include costs, prepaids, skipped mortgage payments, etc) vs the value. Here are your options: Get a new appraisal. If you are confident the value is wrong, go somewhere else and get a new appraisal. Restructure the loan. Any competent Loan Officer would have noticed that you are very close to 80%, and should have offer you the option of splitting the mortgage into a 1st and 2nd loan. Keeping the first loan at 80%, and taking out a 2nd for the difference would avoid MI. Best Regards, Jared Newton"
},
{
"docid": "89964",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's extremely easy to get a rough valuation of your home. Just phone a real estate agent. Virtually any real estate agent will come and value your home free. Even if you say outright \"\"I'm not considering selling, I just want a valuation\"\" they will probably do it, because for them getting contacts of people who might one day want to sell their home is all-important. Even if a few turn you down, some will do it. You might say that an agent isn't going to be as accurate as an appraiser, and you are right. There is also an expectation that they will evaluate higher than the real value, to persuaade you to sell. That probably isn't a big issue, and it's something you can compensate for. And even an appraiser is going to be based somewhat on speculation. You might try to do this calculation yourself, but an agent has access to the actual sale prices of nearby houses - you can't get that information. You only have access to the asking prices. And did I mention they will do it for free?\""
},
{
"docid": "95033",
"title": "",
"text": "It really is a stupid term. What comes to mind with the term underwater? drowning, sunk boats, cars and other property and flooding. All really stressful and damaging. Underwater in mortgages, means you owe more than your house is worth, .... ER your home's value dropped below the value of your mortgage. It does suck but it doesnt mean they are behind on their mortgage and doesnt suck as much as people who are behind. it isnt really something to worry about except for the future when you resell. For a lot of people it is just something they can ignore. In theory, they should get a lower tax bill. Underwater just seems like an odd term for something like your home value dropping below the price your paid for it. If you buy a new car, you can pretty much claim to be underwater as you drive it off the lot, because your car simply isnt worth what you paid for it the second it becomes used. not saying it isnt an interesting stat, or that it is of no concern, it's just an odd term. To me it is more fitting for people behind in their payments than for people whose property lost value. (and yeah i get it is more dire for investors and somewhat for landlords but not always)"
},
{
"docid": "245810",
"title": "",
"text": "Because it appears you have in the neighborhood of 30 years remianing on your mortgage for the first house, If you can sell it you will likely be better off in the end. While renting has the potential for greater income it is a business. And like any business there are risks, expenses, and work required to make it successful. There will be times where you can not find a renter immediately and will be responsible for making both payments, maintaining both houses, the insurance(which for an owner is higher for a rental property than a domicile), and paying the applicable taxes. You need to look at your best and worst case numbers. If your best case numbers leave you in the hole 300/month then that is not the sort of business you want to run. Your investment should build your savings and retirement funds not deplete them. Further you are more likely to fall between your best and worst case scenerios. So you need to be able to thrive at that level. If something in the middle is going to take you into bankruptcy then sell the property. If you are not willing to put the time into your business that it will need (My rental home took about 10-30 hours a month despite renters being responsible for basic upkeep and maintenance. Finally your plan B: A home with 800k value will have higher costs and higer expenses and maintenance. If the 800k home is the home you and your family needs then by all means go for it. But if it can do just as well in the 450k Home then go there. Pay the home off early by making the payments you would be making for the 800k home. In this way you pay less in total cost of the home and set your self up for the greatest chance of success. Once that home is paid off the break even point for renting goes way down as well. So the rental option could be in the future. I would just aviod it now if possible."
},
{
"docid": "11998",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have a couple other important considerations regarding external HSA accounts vs employer sponsored HSA accounts. Depending on your personal financial situation and goals; some people like to use HSA accounts as an extra retirement account (since the money can be withdrawn penalty free in retirement for non-medical expenses, and completely tax & penalty free at any time for medical expenses). If your intended use for the HSA account is an investment vehicle for retirement, then you may find more use/benefit out of an external provider that may provide more or better investment options than your employers HSA investment options. There can be a lot of additional value in those extra investment options over greater periods of time. Another VERY important consideration for FICA taxes (FICA includes Social Security & Medicare) that I don't believe was mentioned before - for those earners who are under the maximum social security wage limit, you are paying 6.2% of each paycheck into social security taxes. As others have mentioned you can \"\"save\"\" this tax through your employer’s plan if you set up the account to be funded pre-tax from your paychecks. However, in doing so, you are lowering your overall contributions into social security, which may lower your social security benefits in your retirement years! If this is ultimately going to lower your SSA benefits in retirement then that is a big future cost that may steer you against the pre-tax employer contributions. Think of social security as part of your retirement plan, not as a tax but instead as an additional check you put away for yourself for retirement every month. Of course, this is only an important consideration if SSA is still going to be around when you retire, but let's assume that it will be. This is not an issue for higher earners, earning well above the max SSA taxable wages. There is no wage limit on the 1.45% Medicare tax withholding's, and there is certainly no harm in saving Medicare taxes because it will not affect future Medicare benefits. So for taxpayers earning well over the max SSA wages, they will just save the 1.45% Medicare taxes without affecting their SSA contributions and resulting retirement benefits. So again, it all comes down to personal situations. Depending on your earnings and goals, employer plan may or may not be the way to go. Personally, for my lower earning clients, friends and family, I tend to recommend that they do whatever they can to maximize their social security benefits in retirement. So I would advise them to either use the external provider account, or the employer plan but with post-tax contributions so you don't lower the SSA withholding's but can still claim the income tax deduction on your tax return. YMMV -Dan\""
},
{
"docid": "375632",
"title": "",
"text": "It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property."
},
{
"docid": "372834",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The real answer why the government is \"\"allowed\"\" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for \"\"fair market value\"\". The definition of \"\"fair market value\"\" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of \"\"fair market value\"\". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than \"\"ordinary\"\" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc. My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction.\""
},
{
"docid": "208015",
"title": "",
"text": "Put simply, the advice to never sell a home in CA is based on Note that #2 is unusual: property taxes that do not change as the home value rises came about because of a voter ballot measure, CA Prop 13. So in California, selling your home will expose the buyer of your home to more property taxes than you had to pay. This has some odd consequences: This is all fairly unique. I know property taxes in Tennnessee change as the home increases in value."
},
{
"docid": "290352",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a \"\"possible sales value\"\" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your \"\"net worth\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "499125",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind. Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI? Edit - I just re-read the link. The line \"\"you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down\"\" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO.\""
},
{
"docid": "131395",
"title": "",
"text": "Disclaimer: I’m not an expert. This is my basic understanding, which I’m sure someone will be glad to tell is horribly wrong... You need an LLC. Many people in my area create an LLC management company, then create individual LLCs for each investment property. Laws vary by state. YMMV Then you start researching properties. Commercial loans typically require a higher equity position than home ownership. Assume minimum 30%. For ease of this conversation let’s say you’re making the horribly poor decision to put that towards a single property. You’d be looking for a property in the 175-200k value range, because you’ll need to account for settlement expenses (attorney, broker, consultants) and a cash reserve. You’d be also be looking for what the average cap rate is for your market. In simplistic terms cap rate is the expected rate of return after expenses. So if the average market cap rate in that region for comparable properties is 5%, you can expect around 5% return on your investment, after you pay fees, maintenance, taxes, insurance, interest, etc. Buy a property and hold that property for a few years, making money every year, and claiming deductions on your earnings for something called depreciation. Fast forward 5 years and you’re ready to sell, the value of your property went up because you made improvements along the way, brought in some better tenants who are paying higher rents, and now you can offer a better cap rate than your competitors. You sell in the blink of an eye, and double your investment. Say you have $500k now sitting in the bank in you LLC’s name, in cash. You can either choose to cash out 100% and pay capital gains tax on your earnings above your basis (at 15% I think?)... OR you can quickly find a new property with that $500k, purchase it, and file a 1031, which says you don’t have to pay ANY capital gains on those earnings. You just increased income significantly without ever paying taxes on the underlying increase in value of your assets. Rinse and repeat for 25 years, develop a portfolio of properties, create a management company so you can stop paying others a percentage of your earnings, and you too can have the problem of too much money. I welcome anyone with actual knowledge of the topic to please expound on, or correct me."
},
{
"docid": "151311",
"title": "",
"text": "Part of 'consideration', I imagine, would be the obligation of either party to follow through on an agreement, not only fair market value. Look at the thought experiment from the opposite perspective. If you did not pay him $150 (maybe just $50 or even $0), would you be breaking a contractual obligation to him? If he left after 2 hours because he forgot about a family event and did not finish your move, would he be breaking a contractual obligation to you even if you gave him $150? It seems it can be considered a gift (Update: in all cases) There was no agreement of what either party viewed as full consideration in a mutual exchange. To put it another way: From your examples, there is no evidence that the performance of either party hinged on receiving mutual consideration from the other. More Updates from comments: Patterns Matter Similarly to how the IRS may determine W2 employee vs independent contractor, patterns do matter. If your friend has a pattern of helping people move in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars in gifts every year, the IRS would view that in a different light. A waitress/waiter has a pattern of accepting 'gifts' of tips in exchange for good service as a part of their established job duties. If you gifted your friend with $150/week when they watched your kids every Monday-Wednesday, that would be different. You are establishing a pattern, and I would suggest you may be establishing mutual consideration. In that case, consult a professional if you are worried. Amounts Matter This is why the gift tax exemption was created. The IRS does not care about the amounts in question here. It is too much of a burden to track and account for transactions that are this questionable and this small. You gift your friend with a $20k car? Now you need to pay attention. Consult your CPA. You gift your friend $1k for helping build your new deck? The IRS does not care. Intent Matters Even in the first case, it is not necessarily true that your friend considers $150 to be mutual consideration for his services. Would he open a business where he offers that rate to the general public? I doubt it. He intends to gift you services out of his own free will, not because there will be an equitable exchange of value. The intent of both parties is to give a gift. There is no evidence that would suggest otherwise to the IRS, it seems, even if they cared in the first place."
}
] |
5503 | Tax considerations for selling a property below appraised value to family? | [
{
"docid": "64279",
"title": "",
"text": "Is this legal? If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor. The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications. I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "241425",
"title": "",
"text": "> It's been years since my finance classes, but it seems to me the best course of action after selling the property and paying corporate taxes would be to reinvest the money at the corporate level to then pay out dividends rather than pay each of the 3 shareholders out and have us then pay personal tax on a large amount. Full disclaimer, no one here is, or is acting in capacity as, a tax accountant or lawyer. My understanding is as follows (assuming you're in the US): 1. The C-Corp owns the property. If you sell the property, the *corporation* will receive the proceeds of that sale. IF a capital gain is recognized, *the corporation* will pay the appropriate tax rate. That rate is, apparently, the same as normal income. 2. If you then issue a dividend with the proceeds of that sale, you are actually NOT reinvesting the proceeds, you're distributing them to shareholders. Shareholders will *then* need to pay tax on the dividends at their personal rates *as income.* If you reinvest the cash, it will stay in the business. It will not go directly to shareholders. The cash will need to be invested somewhere else within the company. You will get hit with taxes regardless at least once. If you distribute to shareholders, those proceeds will be taxed twice. Example: Both Cases: Sale Proceeds: $100 Less Corporate Tax of 35%: $35 After-Tax Proceeds: $65 _______________________________________________________________ IF DISTRIBUTED: Distributed to Shareholders: $65 Less Income Taxes at 25%: $16.25 After-Tax Distribution to Shareholders: $48.75 ____________________________________________________________ IF RETAINED: No distributions. Retained Earnings: +$65 Cash: +$65 Book Value of Equity: +$65 Shareholder Wealth Increase: $65"
},
{
"docid": "375632",
"title": "",
"text": "It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property."
},
{
"docid": "195767",
"title": "",
"text": "@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so."
},
{
"docid": "210265",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, you can trade your properties. Go to the county recorder's office to find out the exact procedure. Deeds generally have specific language to use and you must describe the property accurately in the deed. If you want to do the transfer yourself, you will need to make sure you have the language correct. Also, you might want to do a title search to make sure that there are no claims against the property your brother is trading you, such as by a lender who might have loaned money to him with the property as collateral. (3) Yes, the normal way in the US is quitclaim deeds. (4) A quitclaim deed only lists the money (or other consideration) that changes hands. (5) Since it is a trade for equal value, there are no taxes. (6) No. Normally a lawyer is only needed if you are dealing with a stranger and the transaction is complex. As long as you follow the procedures of the clerk's office correctly there should be no need for a lawyer. In fact, a lawyer might be undesirable because they could slow things down. Also, since this is a non-standard trade, a lawyer actually has a higher chance of screwing something up because they will not give it long thought, the way you would. Also, they will use messengers and mail instead of actually going to the recorders office, another source of error which you can avoid by doing the process correctly--ie visiting the recorders office. Lawyers don't like getting out of their chairs and this causes them to make a lot of mistakes."
},
{
"docid": "186487",
"title": "",
"text": "Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed."
},
{
"docid": "154266",
"title": "",
"text": "I would contribute this money to the deposit, but wouldn’t pay anything else-more, and want to know if they do the house up, and it increases in value how does my share gets worked out if I want it out in about l0 years? This can be simple; You have contributed 9K out of 260 K. You own Approx. 3.4% of equity in the house. Whenever this gets sold, you will get back 3.4%. Now the real trick comes in, if the house is not being sold, ie your Sister would continue using it, and you want out, then one would need to decide the fair market value. You could agree to consult some lists or agree of the fair value based on sale price of similar properties in the area. This is where it normally gets difficult and can cause disputes. we do not have much money for solicitors / lawyers, and we don't really really need them It is advisable to get a lawyer as one doesn't know what happens 10 years in future, things may go wrong between you and your sister, or your sister is no more and her fiancé may not honor the agreement you have. There are other considerations; It would be advisable you have your name on the property. It would help from Tax point of view in future. If you are not having your name on the property, then the money you are giving would be loan or gift and needs to have the right paper work If its a gift you can't have it back. Your sister would have to make a gift back to you later whenever you want out. So it can really be complicated and it would be worth the money you spend on lawyer"
},
{
"docid": "257980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are some important things to think about. Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work. Where do you want to live? Are there suitable jobs nearby? How much do they pay? Emergency fund. Banks care that you have \"\"reserves\"\" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck. This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for? If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder. If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder. If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices. If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married? Will you sell? expand? build another house on the same lot? rent the home out? Total budget. How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to? Talk with a banker about how much you can afford. Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget. Consider a new mobile or manufactured home. But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms. Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment. It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting. Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are. Ask about the \"\"front-end\"\" and \"\"back-end\"\" Debt-To-Income ratios. In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans. They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves. They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction. Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area. (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.) Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan. In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit. The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house. If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans. Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent. How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute. How much time will it take to get from your new home to work? How much will it cost? (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel? If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability. How many are there to choose from? Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land? Can you homestead government land? How much does a lot cost? Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid? Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that? (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage) If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems? (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights. Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need. Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need. Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build? (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.) How can the home be used? (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.) What setbacks are required? How tall can the building(s) be? Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder. For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion. If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits. The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete. A good bank will back you up. Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction. Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less. Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction. Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance. Avoid properties that need flood insurance. Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic. Strongly consider earthquake insurance. Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs. Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need. Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump. (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.) You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of \"\"heating degree days\"\" and \"\"cooling degree days\"\" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills. If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design. Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander. Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka. This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect. The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems. Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too. (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house. For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, \"\"the builder's engineer\"\". Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code.\""
},
{
"docid": "593976",
"title": "",
"text": "And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty. His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500. In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession. Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss. Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event. Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property."
},
{
"docid": "329504",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value. You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to \"\"rebalance\"\" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency\""
},
{
"docid": "498417",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being \"\"house-poor\"\" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term.\""
},
{
"docid": "280685",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales. If you sell it for $107K, then that's the current functional definition of its worth. There is not \"\"extra\"\" money to be had because you sold it for less than it was worth. If the buyer is able to flip it for more, then the value of the house effectively went up and he will pocket the difference when he sells it. EDIT This turned out to be unexpectedly controversial, so let me be more precise in my answer. I think this is important because it seems like many people misunderstand equity and how it figures (or doesn't) into the value of their home, which then leads to significant confusion and errors in what's many people's largest single investment. At any given time there are several possible ways to put a dollar value on your home. A non-exclusive list that includes: Some of these obviously are more \"\"official\"\" than others. It would not be strange for these different values to vary by quite a bit at any given time. (This is what I meant in my original answer when I said there's \"\"no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales.\"\") The interesting thing - and what I meant in my original answer when I wrote \"\"current functional definition of its worth\"\" - is that none of these factor directly into the transaction that the OP described of selling his house except for the last. Using the numbers from the OP's example, that means the $107K. Wherever the OP got the number $155K (either from one of the options on my list above or somewhere else), it won't be directly part of the sale between him and his friend. (For completeness, with a nod to Eric's comments on my original answer, some of these numbers may indirectly influence the sale. For example, the buyer typically won't be able to get a mortgage for a value greater than the appraised value of the house, and so that might influence what he's willing and able to bid. There may also be tax consequences if the price is artificially low, like, say, a gift. As further expounded below, however, that's not directly relevant to answering the OP's stated question.) Now, the OP seemed to believe that there is an \"\"extra\"\" $48K in cash up for grabs in this scenario. That comes from the $155K value that the OP claims his house has and the $107K price of the actual proposed sale. This is a complete misconception. When the buyer and seller sit down at closing and the title agent sums up who owes and who receives cash in this transaction, the $155K \"\"theoretical\"\" value will not enter into the calculation and therefore no one will pocket it. Subsequently, however, after the buyer takes possession, he may sell it. If it's true that he \"\"got a deal\"\" on the transaction at $107K, then he maybe able to flip it and turn a profit. But if that happens, it will be in a completely separate, subsequent transaction. Even if you look to this hypothetical second sale, however, the $155K doesn't really figure. The new owner will have to find his own buyer, and they will have to agree on a price. That might happen to be $155K, but there's no real reason to believe that it will or it won't.\""
},
{
"docid": "48718",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\""
},
{
"docid": "403701",
"title": "",
"text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one."
},
{
"docid": "209635",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\""
},
{
"docid": "333265",
"title": "",
"text": "Common financial advice is just that - it is common and general in nature and not specific for your financial needs, your goals and your risk tolerance. Regarding the possibility of a US market not going anywhere over a long period of time, well it is not a possibility, it has happened. See chart below: It took 13 years for the S&P 500 to break through 1550, a level first reached in March 2000, tested in October 2007 (just before the GFC) and finally broken through in March 2013. If you had bought in early 2000 you would still be behind when you take inflation into account. If you took the strategy of dollar cost averaging and bought the same dollar value (say $10,000) of the index every six months (beginning of each January and each July) starting from the start of 2000 and bought your last portion in January 2013, you would have a return of about 35% over 13.5 years (or an average of 2.6% per year). Now lets look at the same chart below, but this time add some trend lines. If we instead bought whenever the price crossed above the downtrend-line and sold whenever the price crossed below the uptrend-line (with the first purchase at the start of January 2000), we would have a return of 93% over the 13.5 years (or an average of 6.9% per year). Another more aggressive option (but manageable if you incorporate a risk management strategy) is to buy long when the price crosses the downtrend-line and sell your existing long position and sell short when the price drops below the uptrend-line. That is profiting both up-trending and down-trending markets. Again we start our buying at the start of January 2000. By shorting the index when the market is in a down-trend you could increase the above returns of 93% by another 54%, for a total return of 147% over 13.5 years (or an average of 10.9% per year). To conclude, using a simple long term strategy to time the markets may result in considerably higher returns than dollar cost averaging over the medium to long term, and I know which strategy would help me sleep better at night."
},
{
"docid": "180192",
"title": "",
"text": "I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually. You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate."
},
{
"docid": "410284",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Say the price is $200K. Would I, as a real estate investor, want to buy such a house? If the rent is $600, that's $7200/yr. \"\"the local property tax rate is levied on the tax base, and the applicable tax rate ranges from 0.40% to 0.76%\"\" so, I'll assume .5%, just $1,000. There are rules of thumb that say half the rent will go to maintenance and other costs, if that seems high, say just $2000. We're left with $4000/yr. Less than 2% on the $200K investment. Italian bonds are yielding 8%. As an investor, if I couldn't get more than $2000/mo gross rent, I would not buy the house for $200K. As a parent, I'd have the money invested, have $16K/yr of income and help support you without taking all the risk the real estate investor has. Note: your question and my answer are in dollars, but I acknowledge the Italy tag, and used Italy property tax. My tax is 1.6% of home value in my US city. Edit: per the comment below, the 8% is incorrect. The return on the house purchase doesn't change, of course, but the safe yields are not that high, currently, 1%.\""
},
{
"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": "176334",
"title": "",
"text": "A simple and low-interest loan is probably the least likely to cause acrimony, aside from a direct gift. You seem to be describing an equity stake in their house, where some portion of the appreciation in value accrues to you (relative to your initial investment). An equity stake in their house probably doesn't make much sense. You sound as though you're not going to do any of the work aside from the contribution of money. Equity might make sense as a way to reward you for efforts, such as home design or renovation, that increase the value of the home. You probably don't want to be in a position where you are together improving the property and your payback only comes when she sells for more money. What if you have different ideas of how to do it? She has to live there and may want improvements for her needs rather than for buyers. What if she asks you to pay for a portion of the improvement costs or resents you not offering? What if she doesn't want to sell for some reason, so your money is locked up with her family choices? Renovations can often be stressful, so these decisions may be made at difficult times. Either a gift or a low-interest family loan may be simpler for your needs. You can just set the loan terms you want, say payoff over 10 years or a deferred payment schedule. If she gets in trouble, you could perhaps delay or forgive payments. I don't know the UK tax consequences of a loan of this nature, if any. As a general proposition, it's best to set clear and simple expectations at the beginning, and avoid agreements that require multiple decisions to be made consensually in the future, possibly during a time of stress."
}
] |
5505 | Can I deduct interest and fees on a loan for qualified medical expenses? | [
{
"docid": "100387",
"title": "",
"text": "IRS Publication 502: Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. Loan interest and fees do not meet this definition. Your loan interest and fees are a cost of the payment method you chose (a loan), not a cost of medical treatment. The IRS makes clear where loan interest is deductible. Publication 936 discusses home mortgage interest deductions, and Publication 970 specifically discusses student loan interest deductions. Considering Publication 502's definition of a medical expense, combined with the absence of a publication discussing medical expense loan interest deductions, one must conclude that medical loan interest and fees are not deductible."
}
] | [
{
"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": "544947",
"title": "",
"text": "If medical, not cosmetic, you can deduct medical expenses to the extent they exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. Note: it's been announced that starting in 2013 the deduction is for amounts exceeding 10% of AGI."
},
{
"docid": "66805",
"title": "",
"text": "The eligibilty of the deduction is based on what the borrowed money is used to purchase and NOT what asset is used as collateral. So at the beginning of your mortgage, 10% of the interest is deductible because the entire loan was used to purchase the condo. But when you withdraw money from the account the additional interest is usually not deductible. It can get confusing with all the withdrawals and payments that will be coming in and out of the account if you happen to use it a lot like a chequing account. An easy example would be if you only paid the interest on the loan... Say you had a $100 000 loan at 5% APY (for simplicity's sake). After one year, you would have paid $5000 interest. $500 of the would be deductible given that your office is 10% of the condo. Then you buy a $1000 couch and continue to only pay interest for the next year. You would have paid $5100 interest... $5000 on money borrowed to buy the condo, and $100 on money borrowed to buy the couch. So you can still only deduct $500. What happens when you pay back $500 against the line of credit? Could you designate that 100% of the money should be applied to the non-deductible interest? Or does it have to applied proportionally? I don't know. I think it'd would be wise to separate the loans somehow. Manulife may even have some tools to facilitate that. However, I wouldn't recommend the Manulife One product. I looked into when I was buying my house two years ago, and at that time it was too expensive. The rate was the same that other banks were charging for a home equity line of credit (which was prime at the time). You can replicate the Manulife One in a cheaper way using a traditional mortgage and a home equity line of credit... The majority of the loan will be the traditional mortgage at (hopefully) a cheap rate. Then you can use your line of credit as the chequing account."
},
{
"docid": "187085",
"title": "",
"text": "During World War II, the United States (US) instituted wage and price controls. To attract better employees, companies would offer benefits to get around salary limits. Health insurance was one of the more successful benefits. At that time, income taxes were newer and there were many ways to evade them. Companies could generally deduct expenses. So at that time, health care was deductible because everything was. And at that time, only wages were taxable compensation from employer to employee. Since that time, many other benefits have become non-deductible for employers, e.g. housing or the reduced deduction for meals and entertainment. But health care is generally regarded as different, as a necessity. While everyone needs to eat, not everyone needs to eat at a $100 a meal restaurant. People who need expensive health care really need it. People who eat expensive food just prefer it. And of course, health care is more intermittent where food is relatively consistent. You don't need ten thousand calories one day and zero the next. But some families have no health care expenses in a year while another might have cancer or a pregnancy. Note that medical care expenses can be deducted for individuals if they are large enough in aggregate and you itemize. And of course both businesses and workers have incentives to maintain the current system with deductibility. Health insurance is a common benefit. Housing is not (although it's worth noting that travel housing and meals are deductible). So there have been few people impacted by making housing taxable while many people would be impacted by taxable health insurance. You can deduct health insurance costs if self-employed. It's also not true that health insurance is the only benefit with preferential tax treatment. Retirement and child care are also deductible. Even meals and housing can be deducted in certain circumstances. The complex rules about what and how much is deductible. There have been rumbles about normalizing the tax treatment of health insurance and medical care, but there is a lot of opposition. Insurance companies oppose making all healthcare expenses deductible, as that reduces their effective benefit. They would prefer only insurance premiums be deductible. Traditionally employed individuals oppose making health insurance taxable, as that would increase their taxes. So the situation persists. There isn't quite enough support to move in either direction, although the current compromise is economically silly."
},
{
"docid": "522671",
"title": "",
"text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him."
},
{
"docid": "588399",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is \"\"HSA compatible\"\". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a \"\"high deductible\"\" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any \"\"first dollar\"\" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered \"\"preventive care\"\".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details.\""
},
{
"docid": "185047",
"title": "",
"text": "Why would someone invest in other instruments (e.g. stocks) to pay for childrens' college education when the capital gains on those are taxed, unlike a home equity loan? Many tax advantageous vehicles exist for the purpose of saving for college education such as 529 plans, Roth IRAs, Series EE and I bonds. Tax and penalty free distributions from a portfolio of stocks is possible if the distributions are for qualified education expenses and the account is in the form of a Roth IRA. A house is collateral for a home equity line of credit. A combination of unfortunate events could cause someone to default on the loan and loose their residence. Also, the tax advantages of 529 plans, and Roth IRAs are not applicable to purchase a motor boat. With respect, some people like to leave the home equity loan untapped for other uses. More Details: 529 plans are not taxed by on the Federal level when the withdraws are used for college. In many states, contributions to state sponsored 529 plans are deductible on the state level. These are not self directed so you can't trade stocks/bonds in a 529 plan, however, certain plans allow you to lock in the rate you pay for credit at today's prices. If you want a self directed (ability to trade stocks/bonds) vehicle with tax free disbursements for qualified education, consider a Roth IRA. There are yearly contribution limits, and penalty if the proceeds are not used for qualified educational expenses. Also I believe interest revenue from Series EE and I bonds is tax free if the bond is used for education. There are special conditions and situations to 529 plans, Roth IRAs, Series EE and I bonds, the purpose of this answer was to expand upon the tax advantageous vehicles for higher education."
},
{
"docid": "345274",
"title": "",
"text": "As the answer from Guest5 noted, any expense you have before the HSA is established is not considered a qualified medical expense for an HSA distribution. However, it is important to note that since you now have the HSA established, any medical expense you have from this point on is a qualified medical expense, even if you don't take an HSA distribution for it right away. For example, let's say that you have a medical expense this year, but you don't take an HSA distribution to reimburse yourself right away. (Maybe it is because you don't have enough money in your HSA to reimburse yourself at this time.) You can reimburse yourself in the future for this expense. As long as you had an HSA in place when the expense was incurred, it doesn't matter if you wait to take the distribution."
},
{
"docid": "500357",
"title": "",
"text": "As a non-resident, you need to file a form 1040NR in any year that you have a distribution (withdrawal) from your HSA. From the Instructions for Form 1040NR, Who Must File: You also must file a return if you received HSA, Archer MSA, or Medicare Advantage MSA distributions. You file a form 8889 with your 1040NR, and on that form you report how much money you took out of the HSA and how much of that was used for qualified medical expenses. If these distributions are used for qualified medical expenses, even in your home country, they are tax free. Any part of the distribution that is not used for medical expenses is taxable, and you would need to send in a tax payment with your 1040NR. If you just cash out your HSA with no medical expenses, you will pay tax on the amount plus a 20% penalty. If you have no other U.S. connected income, your tax rate will be based solely on the amount of your distribution (probably 10-15%), so you are looking at a total tax of 30-35%. It may be worth your while to leave the HSA in place and just withdraw it as you have medical expenses. You'll need to file a tax return each year you take money out until the HSA is gone, but you won't pay any tax."
},
{
"docid": "169178",
"title": "",
"text": "A normal FSA also gives you a short term loan: money earmarked is available in entirety immediately, while you repay it every paycheck. This is interest free, and if you time your large planned medical expenses for January, can be a nice cheap loan."
},
{
"docid": "16466",
"title": "",
"text": "I fell into a similar situation as you. I spent a lot of time trying to understand this, and the instructions leave a lot to be desired. What follows is my ultimate decisions, and my rationale. My taxes have already been filed, so I will let you know if I get audited! 1.) So in cases like this I try to understand the intent. In this case section III is trying to understand if pre-tax money was added to your HSA that you were not entitled too. As you describe, this does not apply to you. I would think you should be ok not including section III (I didn't.) HOWEVER, I am not a tax-lawyer or even a lawyer! 2.) I do not believe these are medical distributions From the 8889 doc.... Qualified HSA distribution. This is a distribution from a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is contributed by your employer directly to your HSA. This is a one-time distribution from any of these arrangements. The distribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the HSA and is subject to the testing period rules shown below. See Pub. 969 for more information. So I don't think you have anything to report here. 3.) As you have no excess this line can just be zero. 4.) From the 8889 doc This is a distribution from your traditional IRA or Roth IRA to your HSA in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. Again, I don't think this applies to you so you can enter zero. 5.) This one is the easiest. You can always get this money tax free if you use it for qualified medical expenses. From the 8889 Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse, or dependents are excludable from gross income. (See the line 15 instructions for information on medical expenses of dependents not claimed on your return.) You can receive distributions from an HSA even if you are not currently eligible to have contributions made to the HSA. However, any part of a distribution not used to pay qualified medical expenses is includible in gross income and is subject to an additional 20% tax unless an exception applies. I hope this helps!"
},
{
"docid": "187810",
"title": "",
"text": "Some of the expenses you describe may be eligible to be paid off by a 401(k) without incurring a penalty. As long as you do not mind paying tax on the extra income. If your tax bracket does not go up, then using your IRA may not be a bad idea. You should consult a tax expert and see which expenses can qualify for a withdrawal without penalty. I believe medical bills and medical insurance costs are eligible to be withdrawn without penalty in some instances."
},
{
"docid": "322311",
"title": "",
"text": "I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense. If the interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market."
},
{
"docid": "412917",
"title": "",
"text": "Cynical answer: Real Estate agents make money on commission from sale of houses, so their compensation is tied to the home price. Banks make money off loans, so it is in their interest to make larger loans (as long as the loan gets paid). So their is a tension at the bank between selling a larger mortgage, and ensuring that their customer can pay the mortgage. Gross income is easier to check, and the taxes at a given income are fairly predictable. And banks realized that people can change their medical and retirement deductions."
},
{
"docid": "134063",
"title": "",
"text": "Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though. So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage. You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on: Good luck, EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore, Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years."
},
{
"docid": "527620",
"title": "",
"text": "you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce."
},
{
"docid": "84963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your corporation would file a corporate income tax return on an annual basis. One single month of no revenue doesn't mean much in that annual scheme of things. Total annual revenue and total annual expenses are what impact the results. In other words, yes, your corporation can book revenues in (say) 11 of 12 months of the year but still incur expenses in all months. Many seasonal businesses operate this way and it is perfectly normal. You could even just have, say, one super-awesome month and spend money the rest of the year. Heck, you could even have zero revenue but still incur expenses—startups often work like that at first. (You'd need investment funding, personal credit, a loan, or retained earnings from earlier profitable periods to do that, of course.) As long as your corporation has a reasonable expectation of a profit and the expenses your corporation incurs are valid business expenses, then yes, you ought to be able to deduct those expenses from your revenue when figuring taxes owed, regardless of whether the expenses were incurred at the same approximate time as revenue was booked—as long as the expense wasn't the acquisition of a depreciable asset. Some things your company would buy—such as the computer in your example—would not be fully deductible in the year the expense is incurred. Depreciable property expenses are deducted over time according to a schedule for the kind of property. The amount of depreciation expense you can claim for such property each year is known as Capital Cost Allowance. A qualified professional accountant can help you understand this. One last thing: You wrote \"\"write off\"\". That is not the same as \"\"deduct\"\". However, you are forgiven, because many people say \"\"write off\"\" when they actually mean \"\"deduct\"\" (for tax purposes). \"\"Write off\"\", rather, is a different accounting term, meaning where you mark down the value of an asset (e.g. a bad loan that will never be repaid) to zero; in effect, you are recognizing it is now a worthless asset. There can be a tax benefit to a write-off, but what you are asking about are clearly expense deductions and not write-offs. They are not the same thing, and the next time you hear somebody using \"\"write off\"\" when they mean \"\"deduction\"\", please correct them.\""
},
{
"docid": "304248",
"title": "",
"text": "From Tax Benefits for Education Student-activity fees and expenses for course-related books, supplies and equipment are included in qualified education expenses only if the fees and expenses must be paid to the institution as a condition of enrollment or attendance. It seems to me the books are not a deduction unless the above criteria is met."
},
{
"docid": "73252",
"title": "",
"text": "The FSA can only pay for expenses incurred after it was open. This also applies in case of a mid-year change in election (such as due to marriage, divorce, child birth, etc.) For example, according to this page: You can only be reimbursed for qualifying expenses, from the election that was in place at the time the expense was incurred. So, say you had $500 available from January to June, then on July 1 had a qualifying event, you then elected $2000. You can be reimbursed for up to $500 in expenses incurred prior to July 1, and then an additional $1500 in expenses incurred after (up to $2000 if you didn't use your full $500). More specifically, from the IRS Publication: Generally, distributions from a health FSA must be paid only to reimburse you for qualified medical expenses you incurred during the period of coverage. -- The HSA question is more complicated. I would talk to a tax accountant, or at minimum your benefits coordinator. Also read the publication I linked above, the first part is about HSAs. The short answer to your specific question: stop contributing to the HSA, unless you were contributing well under the limit of the HSA. If you know your limit, and you know you're under it, you can continue contributing until April 15 of next year: If you fail to be an eligible individual during 2013, you can still make contributions, up until April 15, 2014, for the months you were an eligible individual. The general rule is you can contribute up to (1/12)*(your limit)*(number of months you were eligible). So, if you changed jobs Oct 1, and you're single, then you could contribute (3250)*(1/12)*(9), or just over $2400 in total for the year. If you've contributed less than that to date, you may continue contributing up to that amount - but again, contact your benefits coordinator or preferably a tax accountant, as the rules can be complicated. You definitely cannot deduct any expenses from the account that you incur after you are no longer eligible, and the rules on distributions are pretty complicated - and if you get it wrong, you may owe a 10% penalty on top of the tax you would normally owe, so there is significant incentive not to get it wrong."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "169893",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off the car loan today. You already have an excellent credit score. Practically speaking, there is no difference between a 750 score and an 850 score; you are already eligible for the best loan rates. The fact that you are continuing to use 5 credit cards and that you still have a mortgage tells me that this car loan will have a negligible impact on your score (and your life). By the way, if you had told me that your score was low, I would still tell you to pay off the loan, but for a different reason. In that case, I would tell you to stop worrying about your score, and start getting your financial life in order by eliminating debt. Take care of your finances by reducing the amount of debt in your life, and the score will take care of itself. I realize that the financial industry stresses the importance of a high score, but they are also the ones that sell you the debt necessary to obtain the high score."
}
] | [
{
"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": "499336",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\""
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
},
{
"docid": "466161",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating. As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited. There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were. In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of \"\"live and learn\"\"!\""
},
{
"docid": "255703",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\""
},
{
"docid": "232811",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\""
},
{
"docid": "343748",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what your car loan would look like if you paid it off in 14 months at the existing 2.94% rate: You'll pay a total of about $277 in interest. If you do a balance transfer of the $10,000 at 3% it'll cost you $300 up front, and your payment on the remaining $5,000 will be $363.74 to pay it off in the 14 month period. Your total monthly payment will be $1,099.45; $5,000 amortized at 2.94% for 14 months plus $10,300 divided by 14. ($363.74 + 735.71). Your interest will be about $392, $300 from the balance transfer and $92 from the remaining $5,000 on the car loan at 2.94%. Even if your lender doesn't credit your additional payment to principal and instead simply credits future payments, you'd still be done in 15 months with a total interest expense of about $447. So this additional administration and additional loan will save you maybe about $55 over 14 or 15 months."
},
{
"docid": "175522",
"title": "",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name."
},
{
"docid": "117085",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Everyone has made some good points that I was going to mention but to put it in terms that might make it easier to decide. As stated by others, paying off debt and being free is always the goal and desirable. However, you must also consider the \"\"efficiency\"\" of what you do as well. For example, there are two common types of student loans (there are others but let's focus on these) and that is subsidized and unsubsidized. The main difference? Subsidized loans don't earn interest on your balance while you are in school, it only happens when you graduate and come out of repayment grace period. Unsubsidized loans begin accumulating interest the moment they are disbursed, but you are not required to make payments on them until you graduate. All student loans are deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period or other means of deferring your payment, say for example a postponement or forbearance. However, it is often recommended that on UNSUBSIDIZED loans, you pay down your principle while still in school to avoid that massive interest amount that will get added to it when you are officially in repayment. On the other hand, it is often (if not always) recommended that you hold off on paying SUBSIDIZED loans until you are done and go into repayment, as for all intents and purposes its not costing you anything extra to wait. Family and parent loans are considered and treated more like personal loans, so treat them as such. Hope that helps. Also, don't forget to take advantage of the income based repayment options, as they will make the payments manageable enough to avoid making them a burden while you are trying to get a job and go post education. Further reading: Income-Driven Plans (Department of Education) Income-Driven Repayment Plans (nelnet)\""
},
{
"docid": "567206",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\""
},
{
"docid": "555280",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\""
},
{
"docid": "150607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\""
},
{
"docid": "482310",
"title": "",
"text": "Thanks for your service. I would avoid personal investment opportunities at this point. Reason being that you can't personally oversee them if you are deployed overseas. This would rule out rentals and small businesses. Revisit those possibilities if you get married or leave the service. If you have a definite time when you would like to purchase a car, you could buy a six or twelve month CD with the funds that you need for that. That will slightly bump up your returns without taking much risk. If you don't really need to buy the car, you could invest that money in stocks. Then if the stock market tanks, you wait until it recovers (note that that can be five to ten years) or until you build up your savings again. That increases your reward at a significant increase in your risk. The risk being that you might not be able to buy a car for several more years. Build an emergency fund. I would recommend six months of income. Reason being that your current circumstances are likely to change in an emergency. If you leave the service, your expenses increase a lot. If nothing else, the army stops providing room for you. That takes your expenses from trivial to a third of your income. So basing your emergency fund on expenses is likely to leave you short of what you need if your emergency leaves you out of the service. Army pay seems like a lot because room (and board when deployed) are provided. Without that, it's actually not that much. It's your low expenses that make you feel flush, not your income. If you made the same pay in civilian life, you'd likely feel rather poor. $30,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn't. The median household income is a little over $50,000, so the median emergency fund should be something like $25,000 on the income standard. On the expenses standard, the emergency fund should be at least $15,000. The $15,000 remainder would buy a cheap new car or a good used car. The $5000 remainder from the income standard would give you a decent used car. I wouldn't recommend taking out a loan because you don't want to get stuck paying a loan on a car you can't drive because you deployed. Note that if you are out of contact, in the hospital, or captured, you may not be able to respond if there is a problem with the car or the loan. If you pay cash, you can leave the car with family and let them take care of things in case of a deployment. If you invested in a Roth IRA in January of 2016, you could have invested in either 2015 or 2016. If 2015, you can invest again for 2016. If not, you can invest for 2017 in three months. You may already know all that, but it seemed worth making explicit. The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) allows you to invest up to $18,000 a year. If you're investing less than that, you could simply boost it to the limit. You apparently have an extra $10,000 that you could contribute. A 60% or 70% contribution is quite possible while in the army. If you max out your retirement savings now, it will give you more options when you leave the service. Or even if you just move out of base housing. If your TSP is maxed out, I would suggest automatically investing a portion of your income in a regular taxable mutual fund account. Most other investment opportunities require help to make work automatically. You essentially have to turn the money over to some individual you trust. Securities can be automated so that your investment grows automatically even when you are out of touch."
},
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "469239",
"title": "",
"text": "If you think you can pay off the entire amount you borrowed over the next 12 month, then you're getting an unsecured loan at around 4% APR, assuming you're borrowing for the whole year. That's pretty good compared to what you can typically get at the credit union. However, if you only need the money for, say, 3 months, that 4% fee effectively becomes a 16% APR! And, the real trouble comes when you don't pay it off by the end of the 12 month and the standard rate kicks in. If you do use the convenience check, be sure to put in your calendars a reminder that the balance is due -- set the reminder about a month before the last billing cycle of your 0% period. Make sure you also have sufficient cash flow and an automated payment setup to make sure you always pay at least the minimum due on time. Depending on your banking history, you might be able to get away with one missed payment -- but more likely, you'll be penalized as soon as you miss a payment by a penny or a day -- and the 0% loan suddenly becomes very expensive. Read all the fine print, make sure you understand them, and set up a system to make sure you can play to the rules of the game."
},
{
"docid": "253563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "155490",
"title": "",
"text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return."
},
{
"docid": "466944",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The fundamental question I'd have to ask here is - when will the interest you owe on the loan on your house be capitalized? I think thats a fancy way of saying - how is your bank calculating the amount of interest on the loan? Is it based purely on the principal, or on the principal + existing interest? Your situation is similar to that of having a student loan - it sounds like your loan is in deferment, but is equivalent to being \"\"unsubsidized\"\" - that is, you still are being charged interest on the loan. The question really boils down to - will you be paying interest on only the principal of the loan or both the principal and the interest of the loan? Here are some helpful steps: If the interest is capitalized immediately, I believe it is correct to say it doesn't matter if you pay the principal or the interest of your loan first. If the interest is NOT capitalized until your deferment period is over, then its definitely best to pay off the principal first. Hope this helps.\""
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "343748",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what your car loan would look like if you paid it off in 14 months at the existing 2.94% rate: You'll pay a total of about $277 in interest. If you do a balance transfer of the $10,000 at 3% it'll cost you $300 up front, and your payment on the remaining $5,000 will be $363.74 to pay it off in the 14 month period. Your total monthly payment will be $1,099.45; $5,000 amortized at 2.94% for 14 months plus $10,300 divided by 14. ($363.74 + 735.71). Your interest will be about $392, $300 from the balance transfer and $92 from the remaining $5,000 on the car loan at 2.94%. Even if your lender doesn't credit your additional payment to principal and instead simply credits future payments, you'd still be done in 15 months with a total interest expense of about $447. So this additional administration and additional loan will save you maybe about $55 over 14 or 15 months."
},
{
"docid": "499336",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\""
},
{
"docid": "321436",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing is to look at the monthly cost of the loan. The one from the company is interest free. While it is unlikely that a bank will have a zero percent loan, you will also have to look at what the seller will offer. The next thing to look at is the term of the loan. When comparing two loans with the same interest rate the shorter term loan will cost more per month. Many times when an auto dealer offers a zero percent loan they also have a very short term: 12-24 months; Many people can't afford the monthly payments with that short a term. You said you could afford to save the other $2000 in about six months. That means you could set aside $333 a month to do it in six months. If the loan from the employer has a term longer than 6 months you should be able to afford the loan. Keep in mind that the employer will probably be taking the money right out of your paychecks. You do have to look at the conditions attached to the loan. What does accepting the loan do to your employment situation? If you leave early do they want you to pay it back in 30 days, or will they take the rest from the final paycheck, or do you have longer? You do have to look at the term of the loan, and see if you can pay it off early. If they require a 12 month term can you end it earlier, or change the monthly payment to end it early? The reason why you care about the term is that if the term is 24 months then after a year you still owe them $1000; which if you have to pay back immediately if you quit, it may make it hard for you to leave the company. A minor note: They probably are not reporting it to the credit reporting agencies therefore it wont help your credit score. This is probably not a big issue since you are considering going without a loan."
},
{
"docid": "489277",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in Barstow CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans Barstow CA 501 E Virginia Way # 1-A Barstow, CA 92311 (760) 957-4105 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-barstow-ca/"
},
{
"docid": "288701",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot."
},
{
"docid": "329137",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \"\"cooling off period\"\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\""
},
{
"docid": "437706",
"title": "",
"text": "Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to."
},
{
"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": "489561",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else."
},
{
"docid": "38786",
"title": "",
"text": "The main benefit of paying off the loan early is that it's not on your mind, you don't have to worry about missing a payment and incurring the full interest due at that point. Your loan may not be set up that way, but most 0% interest loans are set up so that there is interest that's accruing, but you don't pay it so long as all your payments are on time, oftentimes they're structured so that one late payment causes all of that deferred interest to be due. If you put the money in the bank you'd make a small amount of interest and also not have to worry about funds availability for your car payment. If you use the money for some other purpose, you're at greater risk of something going wrong in the next 21 months that causes you to miss a payment and being hit with a lot of interest (if applicable to your loan). If you already have an emergency fund (at least 3-6 months of expenses) then I would pay the loan off now so you don't have to think about it. If you don't have an emergency fund, then I'd bank the money and keep making payments, and pay it off entirely when you have funds in excess of your emergency fund to do so."
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "520026",
"title": "",
"text": "You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "93248",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more."
},
{
"docid": "362296",
"title": "",
"text": "You've got a great emergency fund built up and no credit card debt. That's something to be proud of. If you didn't already have those two things taken care of, that would be your first priority. If I were in your situation, I would pay off the student loan. Yes, it's a low interest rate, but you've got the opportunity to pay it off completely and eliminate a monthly payment from your life. Take it. I don't know if you've already contributed to your Roth IRA for this year or not, but I would set aside $11,000 to cover the max contribution to your Roth IRA for this year and next year. That leaves about $10,000 left. Do you have any money set aside for your next car? If not, allocate most of this money toward your next car. When you need to buy another car, you will be able to pay cash and avoid a car loan."
},
{
"docid": "580555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\""
},
{
"docid": "37601",
"title": "",
"text": "Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency."
},
{
"docid": "194382",
"title": "",
"text": "Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance."
},
{
"docid": "117085",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Everyone has made some good points that I was going to mention but to put it in terms that might make it easier to decide. As stated by others, paying off debt and being free is always the goal and desirable. However, you must also consider the \"\"efficiency\"\" of what you do as well. For example, there are two common types of student loans (there are others but let's focus on these) and that is subsidized and unsubsidized. The main difference? Subsidized loans don't earn interest on your balance while you are in school, it only happens when you graduate and come out of repayment grace period. Unsubsidized loans begin accumulating interest the moment they are disbursed, but you are not required to make payments on them until you graduate. All student loans are deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period or other means of deferring your payment, say for example a postponement or forbearance. However, it is often recommended that on UNSUBSIDIZED loans, you pay down your principle while still in school to avoid that massive interest amount that will get added to it when you are officially in repayment. On the other hand, it is often (if not always) recommended that you hold off on paying SUBSIDIZED loans until you are done and go into repayment, as for all intents and purposes its not costing you anything extra to wait. Family and parent loans are considered and treated more like personal loans, so treat them as such. Hope that helps. Also, don't forget to take advantage of the income based repayment options, as they will make the payments manageable enough to avoid making them a burden while you are trying to get a job and go post education. Further reading: Income-Driven Plans (Department of Education) Income-Driven Repayment Plans (nelnet)\""
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "529123",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's two scenarios: the loan accrues interest on the remaining balance, or the total interest was computed ahead of time and your payments were averaged over x years so your payments are always the same. The second scenarios is better for the bank, so guess what you probably have... In the first scenario, I would pay it off to avoid paying interest. (Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the cash available for something else, and you don't mind paying interest) In the second case, you're going to pay \"\"interest over x years\"\" as computed when you bought the car no matter how quickly you pay it off, so take your time. (If you pay it earlier, it's like paying interest that would not have actually accrued, since you're paying it off faster than necessary) If you pay it off, I'm not sure if it would \"\"close\"\" the account, your credit history might show the account as being paid, which is a good thing.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "179891",
"title": "",
"text": "Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "580555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\""
},
{
"docid": "187526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, excellent choice to say no to non-subsidized loans! But I'd say you are cutting things very close either way, and you need to face up to that now. $35/mo extra at the end of the month is \"\"within the noise\"\" of financial life, meaning you should think of it as essentially $0 each month or even negative money, since one vet bill/school books/unforeseen problem could remove it for the entire year, easily. You are leaving yourself no buffer. But by taking the loan, unless you are (as Joe said) socking away savings to pay for it upon graduation, you are guaranteeing you'll leave college with debt, which I think should be avoided if you can. Could you do a hybrid plan in which you worked hard to do the following?: If you do these things or something along these lines, the loan is probably OK; if not, I'd be concerned about taking it. [Probably unnecessary, but: Keep in mind that student loans are not excusable by bankruptcy, so one is on the hook for them no matter what]. Also consider whether you can take a semester off now and then to catch up financially. The key is to really stay far from the edge of any financial cliffs.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "543193",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Following up on @petebelford's answer: If you can find a less expensive loan, you can refinance the car and reduce the total interest you pay that way. Or, if your loan permits it (not all do; talk to the bank which holds the loan and,/or read the paperwork you didn't look at), you may be able to make additional payments to reduce the principal of the loan, which will reduce the amount and duration of the loan and could significantly reduce the total interest paid ... at the cost of requiring you pay more each month, or pay an additional sum up front. Returning the car is not an option. A new car loses a large portion of its value the moment you drive it off the dealer's lot and it ceases to be a \"\"new\"\" car. You can't return it. You can sell it as a recent model used car, but you will lose money on the deal so even if you use that to pay down the loan you will still owe the bank money. Given the pain involved that way, you might as well keep the car and just try to refinance or pay it off. Next time, read and understand all the paperwork before signing. (If you had decided this was a mistake within 3 days of buying, you might have been able to take advantage of \"\"cooling down period\"\" laws to cancel the contract, if such laws exist in your area. A month later is much too late.)\""
},
{
"docid": "500946",
"title": "",
"text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal."
},
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "502658",
"title": "",
"text": "I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships. While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case. All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work. This would include your son's future significant other. Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations. Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP: Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off. His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50. He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional. My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend. If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment. You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable."
},
{
"docid": "343208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\""
},
{
"docid": "346024",
"title": "",
"text": "While C/C's have 0% interest this a good mechanism to manage debt. But they expect you will pile up a large debt and at then of the interest free period you will get hammered. So plan your exit strategy. Plan to pay off the 0% cards at the end of the int free period and pay the other cards down. Alternatively, What you could do is pay off the other cards now by drawing down on the 0% card if its possible. Then.all your debt is at 0% int. Also you are consolidating your debt into 1 account. When the int free period is over move the debt into a single personal loan if you don't plan on paying it all off immrdiatley In the meantime put you savings into an interest bearing account to maximize the value of your savings."
},
{
"docid": "117085",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Everyone has made some good points that I was going to mention but to put it in terms that might make it easier to decide. As stated by others, paying off debt and being free is always the goal and desirable. However, you must also consider the \"\"efficiency\"\" of what you do as well. For example, there are two common types of student loans (there are others but let's focus on these) and that is subsidized and unsubsidized. The main difference? Subsidized loans don't earn interest on your balance while you are in school, it only happens when you graduate and come out of repayment grace period. Unsubsidized loans begin accumulating interest the moment they are disbursed, but you are not required to make payments on them until you graduate. All student loans are deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period or other means of deferring your payment, say for example a postponement or forbearance. However, it is often recommended that on UNSUBSIDIZED loans, you pay down your principle while still in school to avoid that massive interest amount that will get added to it when you are officially in repayment. On the other hand, it is often (if not always) recommended that you hold off on paying SUBSIDIZED loans until you are done and go into repayment, as for all intents and purposes its not costing you anything extra to wait. Family and parent loans are considered and treated more like personal loans, so treat them as such. Hope that helps. Also, don't forget to take advantage of the income based repayment options, as they will make the payments manageable enough to avoid making them a burden while you are trying to get a job and go post education. Further reading: Income-Driven Plans (Department of Education) Income-Driven Repayment Plans (nelnet)\""
},
{
"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": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"docid": "326948",
"title": "",
"text": "You have made the most important first step by starting to think about your money, well done. Firstly pay of all credit cards as quickly as you can and start to live within your means. Until you have paid of your credits cards don’t spend any money of unnecessary items, e.g. Once your credit cards are paid off you can start living a more normal life. Each time you spend money you need to ask yourself: Is this worth more to be then being able to buy a new house in a few years time? You should be able to save at least half the amount you were paying of the credit card each mouth and still leave a reasonable life, so setup a standing order at the start of the month to your saving account. Given your age you are like to get promoted and hence have increased pay or get increments for each year of service. Therefore Every time your pay goes up, set up a standing order to transfer at least half of the pay increases to a saving account. You did not have this money before, so you will not miss it when you save it. In the long term, you should be able to keep your car until it is about 15 years old, so will not have the cost of buying another car. Therefore once the car loan is over, you can save that money as well."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "560325",
"title": "",
"text": "Not sure if it is the same in the States as it is here in the UK (or possibly even depends on the lender) but if you have any amount outstanding on the loan then you wouldn't own the vehicle, the loan company would. This often offers extra protection if something goes wrong with the vehicle - a loan company talking to the manufacturer to get it resolved carries more weight than an individual. The laon company will have an army of lawyers (should it get that far) and a lot more resources to deal with anything, they may also throw in a courtesy car etc."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "440678",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a lot of things that go into your credit score, but the following steps are core to building it: Now, in your case, you obviously have some flexibility in your monthly budget since you're considering paying down your college loan faster. You have to weigh whether it would be better to pay off the loan that much faster, or just save the money towards buying the car. If you can pile up enough cash to buy the car (and still leave yourself an emergency fund) it would be better to buy the car than add another interest payment. As other answers have noted, you don't want to get in a situation where you have no cash for \"\"unexpected events\"\". Some links of interest:\""
},
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "499336",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\""
},
{
"docid": "194382",
"title": "",
"text": "Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance."
},
{
"docid": "58005",
"title": "",
"text": "Your practice of waiting until you can pay cash is a good one. It will certainly prevent you from getting into debt! Now, to be clear, your question puts a credit card in the same category as a loan, but it doesn't have to be. You could use a credit card almost like cash, if you are careful. I'm not familiar with the system in France, but in the US, even if you are paying cash all the time, there are some benefits to getting a credit card and paying it off in full every month, instead of simply paying with cash. Some of those benefits are: One pretty big downside of having a credit card depends on your personality. Some people, once they have credit, end up spending beyond their means, and end up getting into debt. Please look into whether credit cards work the same way in France before considering the above advice. As for your question regarding getting a loan vs paying cash, that will usually be personal preference, since with a loan you can buy expensive items (such as a house or car) much sooner than you otherwise could if you waited until you saved the money. For example, it might take 10 years or more to build up enough money to purchase a house with cash, so if you don't want to wait that long, you'll need to finance it."
},
{
"docid": "168703",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't call it apples and oranges. This is literally an opportunity cost calculation. You can safely assume S&P500 will perform at least 11% over any 10 year period. Since failing companies are delisted and replaced with new growing companies, the market should continue to grow. No, it's not guaranteed. Lets use an aggressive number for inflation, 4%, leaving a 7% ROR estimate for S&P500. I assume OP has better credit than me, assume a rate around 3.5%. So it looks like net 3.5% ROR. The PMI erases that. You have to continue paying it until you pay off the loan. Put 20% down, get a 15 year fixed at lowest rate. Pay it off quicker."
},
{
"docid": "500946",
"title": "",
"text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal."
},
{
"docid": "489561",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else."
},
{
"docid": "296607",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method."
},
{
"docid": "343748",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what your car loan would look like if you paid it off in 14 months at the existing 2.94% rate: You'll pay a total of about $277 in interest. If you do a balance transfer of the $10,000 at 3% it'll cost you $300 up front, and your payment on the remaining $5,000 will be $363.74 to pay it off in the 14 month period. Your total monthly payment will be $1,099.45; $5,000 amortized at 2.94% for 14 months plus $10,300 divided by 14. ($363.74 + 735.71). Your interest will be about $392, $300 from the balance transfer and $92 from the remaining $5,000 on the car loan at 2.94%. Even if your lender doesn't credit your additional payment to principal and instead simply credits future payments, you'd still be done in 15 months with a total interest expense of about $447. So this additional administration and additional loan will save you maybe about $55 over 14 or 15 months."
},
{
"docid": "255703",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\""
},
{
"docid": "155490",
"title": "",
"text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return."
},
{
"docid": "495595",
"title": "",
"text": "If your payment schedule would have you pay the car off after 11 months then you might be best served by leaving a small final payment for July. The loan will appear on your credit for 7 years but the bump to your score will be reduced more after 2 years if you pay it off in less than 12 months. If you would have several payment left after you have the ability to pay it off then just pay it off. The reduction is not severe or worth the price of interest unless you have <1%. Unused credit has an attrition factor. If you continue to use your credit in a healthy way (>0 <20% balance, no late payments, long term accounts) then you should not even realize much of a negative change."
},
{
"docid": "550457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Outstanding principal balance is the amount you owe at any given time, not including the amount of interest you need to pay as soon as possible. The \"\"capitalized interest\"\" shown is consistent with an average of 13.5 months between when each dollar is borrowed and when the repayment period begins. Suppose you borrow the first half of the money on September 1, 2017 and the second half of the money on February 1, 2017 (5 months later). At that point, half the money has been accruing interest for 5 months. On January 1, 2018, half the money accrued interest for 16 months, and half the money accrued interest for 11 months. The lender now expects you to start repaying the loan, with the first payment due at the end of January 2018 or the beginning of February 2018. If you make the minimum payments on time, the lender expects you to make 120 monthly payments. The last monthly payment would be at the end of December 2027 or the beginning of January 2028. The lender (or the website) should provide details about the actual payment plan, grace periods, provisions for handling inability to pay due to unemployment, and other terms. In the United States, most installment loans pretend that (for purposes of calculating interest) every month has 30 days -- even February and July! Each month, 1/12 of the \"\"annual percentage rate\"\" (APR) is charged as interest. If you do the compounding, a 6.8 percent APR corresponds to (1 + 0.068 / 12)^12 - 1 = 7.016 percent \"\"annual percentage yield\"\" (APY). Also, the APR is understated. The 6.8 percent applies to the full balance (including the loan fees), even though the borrower only gets the amount minus the loan fees. The 6.8 percent rate is useful for doing calculations after the loan fees have been charged, though. These calculations include the capitalized interest and the monthly payment amounts. A true calculation of the APR would take the loan fees into account, and give a higher number than 6.8 percent. But the corrected APR would not be useful for calculating the capitalized interest, nor for calculating the monthly payment amounts.\""
},
{
"docid": "321436",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing is to look at the monthly cost of the loan. The one from the company is interest free. While it is unlikely that a bank will have a zero percent loan, you will also have to look at what the seller will offer. The next thing to look at is the term of the loan. When comparing two loans with the same interest rate the shorter term loan will cost more per month. Many times when an auto dealer offers a zero percent loan they also have a very short term: 12-24 months; Many people can't afford the monthly payments with that short a term. You said you could afford to save the other $2000 in about six months. That means you could set aside $333 a month to do it in six months. If the loan from the employer has a term longer than 6 months you should be able to afford the loan. Keep in mind that the employer will probably be taking the money right out of your paychecks. You do have to look at the conditions attached to the loan. What does accepting the loan do to your employment situation? If you leave early do they want you to pay it back in 30 days, or will they take the rest from the final paycheck, or do you have longer? You do have to look at the term of the loan, and see if you can pay it off early. If they require a 12 month term can you end it earlier, or change the monthly payment to end it early? The reason why you care about the term is that if the term is 24 months then after a year you still owe them $1000; which if you have to pay back immediately if you quit, it may make it hard for you to leave the company. A minor note: They probably are not reporting it to the credit reporting agencies therefore it wont help your credit score. This is probably not a big issue since you are considering going without a loan."
},
{
"docid": "7311",
"title": "",
"text": "Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money. Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account? That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month. If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse. You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do. Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan. (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision."
},
{
"docid": "197796",
"title": "",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into."
},
{
"docid": "437706",
"title": "",
"text": "Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to."
},
{
"docid": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "478426",
"title": "",
"text": "In some states there are significantly higher automobile insurance costs and higher coverage requirements for vehicles that have a lien on them. I suspect this is not your scenario, or you probably would not be considering holding the loan open. But it is something to consider. If you live in a state where insurance coverage and costs depend on a clear title, I would certainly recommend closing the loan as soon as possible."
}
] | [
{
"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": "7311",
"title": "",
"text": "Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money. Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account? That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month. If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse. You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do. Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan. (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision."
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "495595",
"title": "",
"text": "If your payment schedule would have you pay the car off after 11 months then you might be best served by leaving a small final payment for July. The loan will appear on your credit for 7 years but the bump to your score will be reduced more after 2 years if you pay it off in less than 12 months. If you would have several payment left after you have the ability to pay it off then just pay it off. The reduction is not severe or worth the price of interest unless you have <1%. Unused credit has an attrition factor. If you continue to use your credit in a healthy way (>0 <20% balance, no late payments, long term accounts) then you should not even realize much of a negative change."
},
{
"docid": "117085",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Everyone has made some good points that I was going to mention but to put it in terms that might make it easier to decide. As stated by others, paying off debt and being free is always the goal and desirable. However, you must also consider the \"\"efficiency\"\" of what you do as well. For example, there are two common types of student loans (there are others but let's focus on these) and that is subsidized and unsubsidized. The main difference? Subsidized loans don't earn interest on your balance while you are in school, it only happens when you graduate and come out of repayment grace period. Unsubsidized loans begin accumulating interest the moment they are disbursed, but you are not required to make payments on them until you graduate. All student loans are deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period or other means of deferring your payment, say for example a postponement or forbearance. However, it is often recommended that on UNSUBSIDIZED loans, you pay down your principle while still in school to avoid that massive interest amount that will get added to it when you are officially in repayment. On the other hand, it is often (if not always) recommended that you hold off on paying SUBSIDIZED loans until you are done and go into repayment, as for all intents and purposes its not costing you anything extra to wait. Family and parent loans are considered and treated more like personal loans, so treat them as such. Hope that helps. Also, don't forget to take advantage of the income based repayment options, as they will make the payments manageable enough to avoid making them a burden while you are trying to get a job and go post education. Further reading: Income-Driven Plans (Department of Education) Income-Driven Repayment Plans (nelnet)\""
},
{
"docid": "472200",
"title": "",
"text": "Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing."
},
{
"docid": "580555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\""
},
{
"docid": "343208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\""
},
{
"docid": "466161",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating. As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited. There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were. In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of \"\"live and learn\"\"!\""
},
{
"docid": "11126",
"title": "",
"text": "1) How long have you had the car? Generally, accounts that last more than a year are kept on your credit report for 7 years, while accounts that last less than a year are only kept about 2 years (IIRC - could someone correct me if that last number is wrong?). 2) Who is the financing through? If it's through a used car dealer, there's a good chance they're not even reporting it to the credit bureaus (I had this happen to me; the dealer promised he'd report the loan so it would help my credit, I made my payments on time every time, and... nothing ever showed up. It pissed me off, because another positive account on my credit report would have really helped my score). Banks and brand name dealers are more likely to report the loan. 3) What are your expected long term gains on the stocks you're considering selling, and will you have to pay capital gains on them when you do sell them? The cost of selling those stocks could possibly be higher than the gain from paying off the car, so you'll want to run the numbers for a couple different scenarios (optimistic growth, pessimistic, etc) and see if you come out ahead or not. 4) Are there prepayment penalties or costs associated with paying off the car loan early? Most reputable financiers won't include such terms (or they'll only be in effect during the first few months of the loan), but again it depends on who the loan is through. In short: it depends. I know people hate hearing answers like that, but it's true :) Hopefully though, you'll be able to sit down and look at the specifics of your situation and make an informed decision."
},
{
"docid": "326948",
"title": "",
"text": "You have made the most important first step by starting to think about your money, well done. Firstly pay of all credit cards as quickly as you can and start to live within your means. Until you have paid of your credits cards don’t spend any money of unnecessary items, e.g. Once your credit cards are paid off you can start living a more normal life. Each time you spend money you need to ask yourself: Is this worth more to be then being able to buy a new house in a few years time? You should be able to save at least half the amount you were paying of the credit card each mouth and still leave a reasonable life, so setup a standing order at the start of the month to your saving account. Given your age you are like to get promoted and hence have increased pay or get increments for each year of service. Therefore Every time your pay goes up, set up a standing order to transfer at least half of the pay increases to a saving account. You did not have this money before, so you will not miss it when you save it. In the long term, you should be able to keep your car until it is about 15 years old, so will not have the cost of buying another car. Therefore once the car loan is over, you can save that money as well."
},
{
"docid": "489277",
"title": "",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Title Loans in Barstow CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Title Loans Barstow CA 501 E Virginia Way # 1-A Barstow, CA 92311 (760) 957-4105 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-barstow-ca/"
},
{
"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": "499336",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\""
},
{
"docid": "469239",
"title": "",
"text": "If you think you can pay off the entire amount you borrowed over the next 12 month, then you're getting an unsecured loan at around 4% APR, assuming you're borrowing for the whole year. That's pretty good compared to what you can typically get at the credit union. However, if you only need the money for, say, 3 months, that 4% fee effectively becomes a 16% APR! And, the real trouble comes when you don't pay it off by the end of the 12 month and the standard rate kicks in. If you do use the convenience check, be sure to put in your calendars a reminder that the balance is due -- set the reminder about a month before the last billing cycle of your 0% period. Make sure you also have sufficient cash flow and an automated payment setup to make sure you always pay at least the minimum due on time. Depending on your banking history, you might be able to get away with one missed payment -- but more likely, you'll be penalized as soon as you miss a payment by a penny or a day -- and the 0% loan suddenly becomes very expensive. Read all the fine print, make sure you understand them, and set up a system to make sure you can play to the rules of the game."
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "179891",
"title": "",
"text": "Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive."
},
{
"docid": "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."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "383193",
"title": "",
"text": "As an FYI, working for a lending company, I can tell you many have a dollar amount limit that they'll just write off at the end of the month/quarter/etc just to get the loan off the books. It's a little goofy, but I actually bothered to plan ahead and save $9.99 on my student loans since the lender would close out all accounts with a < $10 balance."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "395590",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option."
},
{
"docid": "472200",
"title": "",
"text": "Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing."
},
{
"docid": "500946",
"title": "",
"text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal."
},
{
"docid": "95120",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's assess the situation first, then look at an option: This leaves you with about $1,017/mo in cash flow, provided you spend money on nothing else (entertainment, oil changes, general merchandise, gifts, etc.) So I'd say take $200/mo off that as \"\"backup\"\" money. Now we're at $817/mo. Question: What have you been doing with this extra $800/mo? If you put $600/mo of that extra towards the 10% loan, it would be paid off in 12 months and you would only pay $508 in interest. If you have been saving it (like all the wisest people say you should), then you should have plenty enough to either pay for a new transmission or buy a \"\"good enough\"\" car outright. 10% interest rate on a vehicle purchase is not very good. Not sure why you have a personal loan to handle this rather than an auto loan, but I'll guess you have a low credit score or not much credit history. Cost of a new transmission is usually $1,700 - $3,500. Not sure what vehicle we're talking about, so let's make it $3,000 to be conservative. At your current interest rate, you'll have paid another $1,450 in interest over the next 33 months just trying to pay off your underwater car. If you take your old car to a dealership and trade it in towards a \"\"new to you\"\" car, you might be able to roll your existing loan into a new loan. Now, I'm not sure when you say personal loan if you mean an official loan from a bank or a personal loan from a friend/family-member, so that could make a difference. I'm also not sure if a dealership will be willing to recognize a personal loan in the transaction as I'd wager there's no lien against the vehicle for them to worry about. But, if you can manage it, you may be able to get a lower overall interest rate. If you can't roll it into a new financing plan, then you need to assess if you can afford a new loan (provided you even get approved) on top of your existing finances. One big issue that will affect interest rates and approvals will be your down payment amount. The higher it is, the better interest rate you'll receive. Ultimately, you're in a not-so-great position, but if your monthly budget is as you describe, then you'll be fine after a few more years. The perils of buying a used car is that you never know what might happen. What if you don't repair your existing car, buy another car, and it breaks down in a year? It's all a bit of a gamble. Don't let your emotions get in the way of making a decision. You might be frustrated with your current vehicle, but if $3,000 of repairs makes it last 3 more years, (by which time your current loan should be paid off), then you'll be in a much better spot to finance a newer vehicle. Of course it would be much better to save up cash over that time and buy something outright, but that's not always feasible. Would you rather fix up your current car and keep working to pay down the debt, or, would you rather be rid of the car and put $3,000 down on a \"\"new to you\"\" car and take on an additional monthly debt? There's no single right answer for you. First and foremost you need to assess your monthly cash flow and properly allocate the extra funds. Get out of debt as soon as reasonably possible.\""
},
{
"docid": "58005",
"title": "",
"text": "Your practice of waiting until you can pay cash is a good one. It will certainly prevent you from getting into debt! Now, to be clear, your question puts a credit card in the same category as a loan, but it doesn't have to be. You could use a credit card almost like cash, if you are careful. I'm not familiar with the system in France, but in the US, even if you are paying cash all the time, there are some benefits to getting a credit card and paying it off in full every month, instead of simply paying with cash. Some of those benefits are: One pretty big downside of having a credit card depends on your personality. Some people, once they have credit, end up spending beyond their means, and end up getting into debt. Please look into whether credit cards work the same way in France before considering the above advice. As for your question regarding getting a loan vs paying cash, that will usually be personal preference, since with a loan you can buy expensive items (such as a house or car) much sooner than you otherwise could if you waited until you saved the money. For example, it might take 10 years or more to build up enough money to purchase a house with cash, so if you don't want to wait that long, you'll need to finance it."
},
{
"docid": "156195",
"title": "",
"text": "It has nothing to do with forcing people to pay off their debt; in that case it would make better sense to have people pay off debt rather than interest. It is because you want to have your actual payment stay the same each month, which is easier for the vast majority of people to comprehend and put into their budget. It is called an annuity in Finance terms. In theory you could use another method - eg. pay of the same amount of debt each month - then your interest payments will decrease over time. But in that case your monthly payment (debt + interest) will not be stable - It will start of high and decrease a little bit each month. With an annuity you have a constant cashflow. In Finance you generally operate with three methods of debt repayment: Annuity: Fixed cashflow. High interest payment in the beginning with small debt payments - later it will be reversed. Serial loan: Fixed debt payments. Debt payments are equally spread out accross the period - interst is paid on the remaining debt. Cash flow will decrease over time, because interest payments become smaller for each period. Standing loan: You only pay interest on the loan, no debt payments during the period. All debt is payed back in the end of the loan. In Europe it is common practise to combine a 30 year annuity with a 10 year standing loan, so that you only pay interest on the loan for the first 10 years, thereafter you start paying back the debt and interest, the fixed amount each month (the annuity). This is especially common for first-time buyers, since they usually have smaller salaries early in life than later and therefore need the additional free cash in the beginning of their adult life."
},
{
"docid": "7311",
"title": "",
"text": "Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money. Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account? That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month. If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse. You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do. Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan. (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision."
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "253563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "555280",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\""
},
{
"docid": "175522",
"title": "",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name."
},
{
"docid": "93248",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more."
},
{
"docid": "466944",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The fundamental question I'd have to ask here is - when will the interest you owe on the loan on your house be capitalized? I think thats a fancy way of saying - how is your bank calculating the amount of interest on the loan? Is it based purely on the principal, or on the principal + existing interest? Your situation is similar to that of having a student loan - it sounds like your loan is in deferment, but is equivalent to being \"\"unsubsidized\"\" - that is, you still are being charged interest on the loan. The question really boils down to - will you be paying interest on only the principal of the loan or both the principal and the interest of the loan? Here are some helpful steps: If the interest is capitalized immediately, I believe it is correct to say it doesn't matter if you pay the principal or the interest of your loan first. If the interest is NOT capitalized until your deferment period is over, then its definitely best to pay off the principal first. Hope this helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "16051",
"title": "",
"text": "The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period."
},
{
"docid": "331093",
"title": "",
"text": "\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \"\"feel\"\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\""
},
{
"docid": "489561",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else."
},
{
"docid": "37601",
"title": "",
"text": "Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency."
},
{
"docid": "296607",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method."
},
{
"docid": "495595",
"title": "",
"text": "If your payment schedule would have you pay the car off after 11 months then you might be best served by leaving a small final payment for July. The loan will appear on your credit for 7 years but the bump to your score will be reduced more after 2 years if you pay it off in less than 12 months. If you would have several payment left after you have the ability to pay it off then just pay it off. The reduction is not severe or worth the price of interest unless you have <1%. Unused credit has an attrition factor. If you continue to use your credit in a healthy way (>0 <20% balance, no late payments, long term accounts) then you should not even realize much of a negative change."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "114303",
"title": "",
"text": "what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "187526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, excellent choice to say no to non-subsidized loans! But I'd say you are cutting things very close either way, and you need to face up to that now. $35/mo extra at the end of the month is \"\"within the noise\"\" of financial life, meaning you should think of it as essentially $0 each month or even negative money, since one vet bill/school books/unforeseen problem could remove it for the entire year, easily. You are leaving yourself no buffer. But by taking the loan, unless you are (as Joe said) socking away savings to pay for it upon graduation, you are guaranteeing you'll leave college with debt, which I think should be avoided if you can. Could you do a hybrid plan in which you worked hard to do the following?: If you do these things or something along these lines, the loan is probably OK; if not, I'd be concerned about taking it. [Probably unnecessary, but: Keep in mind that student loans are not excusable by bankruptcy, so one is on the hook for them no matter what]. Also consider whether you can take a semester off now and then to catch up financially. The key is to really stay far from the edge of any financial cliffs.\""
},
{
"docid": "500946",
"title": "",
"text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal."
},
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "543193",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Following up on @petebelford's answer: If you can find a less expensive loan, you can refinance the car and reduce the total interest you pay that way. Or, if your loan permits it (not all do; talk to the bank which holds the loan and,/or read the paperwork you didn't look at), you may be able to make additional payments to reduce the principal of the loan, which will reduce the amount and duration of the loan and could significantly reduce the total interest paid ... at the cost of requiring you pay more each month, or pay an additional sum up front. Returning the car is not an option. A new car loses a large portion of its value the moment you drive it off the dealer's lot and it ceases to be a \"\"new\"\" car. You can't return it. You can sell it as a recent model used car, but you will lose money on the deal so even if you use that to pay down the loan you will still owe the bank money. Given the pain involved that way, you might as well keep the car and just try to refinance or pay it off. Next time, read and understand all the paperwork before signing. (If you had decided this was a mistake within 3 days of buying, you might have been able to take advantage of \"\"cooling down period\"\" laws to cancel the contract, if such laws exist in your area. A month later is much too late.)\""
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "60981",
"title": "",
"text": "So if I understand your plan right, this will be your situation after the house is bought: Total Debt: 645,000 Here's what I would do: Wait until your house sells before buying a new one. That way you can take the equity from that sale and apply it towards the down payment rather than taking a loan on your retirement account. If something happens and your house doesn't sell for as mush as you think it will, you'll lose out on the gains from the amount you borrow, which will more than offset the interest you are paying yourself. AT WORST, pay off the 401(k) loan the instant your sale closes. Take as much of the remaining equity as you can and start paying down student loans. There are several reasons why they are a higher priority than a mortgage - some are mathematical, some are not. Should I look to pay off student loans sooner (even if I refi at a lower rate of 3.5% or so), or the mortgage earlier ... My thoughts are that the student loans follow me for life, but I can always sell and buy another home So you want this baggage for the rest of your life? How liberating will it be when you get that off your back? How much investing are you missing out on because of student loan payments? What happens if you get lose your license? What if you become disabled? Student loans are not bankruptable, but you can always sell the asset behind a mortgage or car loan. They are worse than credit card debt in that sense. You have no tangible asset behind it and no option for forgiveness (unless you decide to practice in a high-need area, but I don't get the sense that that's your path). The difference in interest is generally only a few payment' worth over 15 years. Is the interest amortized the same as a 15 year if I pay a 30 year mortgage in 15 years? Yes, however the temptation to just pay it off over 30 years is still there. How often will you decide that a bigger car payment, or a vacation, or something else is more important? With a 15-year note you lock in a plan and stick to it. Some other options:"
},
{
"docid": "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": "156195",
"title": "",
"text": "It has nothing to do with forcing people to pay off their debt; in that case it would make better sense to have people pay off debt rather than interest. It is because you want to have your actual payment stay the same each month, which is easier for the vast majority of people to comprehend and put into their budget. It is called an annuity in Finance terms. In theory you could use another method - eg. pay of the same amount of debt each month - then your interest payments will decrease over time. But in that case your monthly payment (debt + interest) will not be stable - It will start of high and decrease a little bit each month. With an annuity you have a constant cashflow. In Finance you generally operate with three methods of debt repayment: Annuity: Fixed cashflow. High interest payment in the beginning with small debt payments - later it will be reversed. Serial loan: Fixed debt payments. Debt payments are equally spread out accross the period - interst is paid on the remaining debt. Cash flow will decrease over time, because interest payments become smaller for each period. Standing loan: You only pay interest on the loan, no debt payments during the period. All debt is payed back in the end of the loan. In Europe it is common practise to combine a 30 year annuity with a 10 year standing loan, so that you only pay interest on the loan for the first 10 years, thereafter you start paying back the debt and interest, the fixed amount each month (the annuity). This is especially common for first-time buyers, since they usually have smaller salaries early in life than later and therefore need the additional free cash in the beginning of their adult life."
},
{
"docid": "155490",
"title": "",
"text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return."
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
},
{
"docid": "520026",
"title": "",
"text": "You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "38786",
"title": "",
"text": "The main benefit of paying off the loan early is that it's not on your mind, you don't have to worry about missing a payment and incurring the full interest due at that point. Your loan may not be set up that way, but most 0% interest loans are set up so that there is interest that's accruing, but you don't pay it so long as all your payments are on time, oftentimes they're structured so that one late payment causes all of that deferred interest to be due. If you put the money in the bank you'd make a small amount of interest and also not have to worry about funds availability for your car payment. If you use the money for some other purpose, you're at greater risk of something going wrong in the next 21 months that causes you to miss a payment and being hit with a lot of interest (if applicable to your loan). If you already have an emergency fund (at least 3-6 months of expenses) then I would pay the loan off now so you don't have to think about it. If you don't have an emergency fund, then I'd bank the money and keep making payments, and pay it off entirely when you have funds in excess of your emergency fund to do so."
},
{
"docid": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "362296",
"title": "",
"text": "You've got a great emergency fund built up and no credit card debt. That's something to be proud of. If you didn't already have those two things taken care of, that would be your first priority. If I were in your situation, I would pay off the student loan. Yes, it's a low interest rate, but you've got the opportunity to pay it off completely and eliminate a monthly payment from your life. Take it. I don't know if you've already contributed to your Roth IRA for this year or not, but I would set aside $11,000 to cover the max contribution to your Roth IRA for this year and next year. That leaves about $10,000 left. Do you have any money set aside for your next car? If not, allocate most of this money toward your next car. When you need to buy another car, you will be able to pay cash and avoid a car loan."
},
{
"docid": "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": "89807",
"title": "",
"text": "The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car. Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "278699",
"title": "",
"text": "Nobody outside of the credit scoring agencies know exactly what goes into the scoring formula. That said, I don't think there is any evidence that keeping a fixed loan (car or mortgage) open is necessary to keep its effect on your score. It doesn't improve your utilization ratio like an open revolving credit line would. And depending on the exact details of how your specific lender reports the loan, it might appear detrimental to your debt-to-income ratio. I would simply pay it off."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "362919",
"title": "",
"text": "Refinance, definitely. Go for Fixed 15 years, which will leave you with the same remaining time for the loan that you have now, but a much lower interest (you can find below 4%, if you look hard enough). You might end up with lower payments and higher portion of interest to deduct from your taxes. win-win. If you're confident you're able to pay it off within 7 years, you can get an even better rate with an ARM 10/1 or 7/1."
},
{
"docid": "343208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\""
},
{
"docid": "175522",
"title": "",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name."
},
{
"docid": "89807",
"title": "",
"text": "The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car. Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher."
},
{
"docid": "590364",
"title": "",
"text": "Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure."
},
{
"docid": "16051",
"title": "",
"text": "The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period."
},
{
"docid": "580555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\""
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "395590",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option."
},
{
"docid": "43027",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "520026",
"title": "",
"text": "You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "502658",
"title": "",
"text": "I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships. While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case. All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work. This would include your son's future significant other. Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations. Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP: Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off. His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50. He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional. My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend. If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment. You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable."
},
{
"docid": "329137",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \"\"cooling off period\"\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\""
},
{
"docid": "296607",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method."
},
{
"docid": "232811",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\""
},
{
"docid": "550457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Outstanding principal balance is the amount you owe at any given time, not including the amount of interest you need to pay as soon as possible. The \"\"capitalized interest\"\" shown is consistent with an average of 13.5 months between when each dollar is borrowed and when the repayment period begins. Suppose you borrow the first half of the money on September 1, 2017 and the second half of the money on February 1, 2017 (5 months later). At that point, half the money has been accruing interest for 5 months. On January 1, 2018, half the money accrued interest for 16 months, and half the money accrued interest for 11 months. The lender now expects you to start repaying the loan, with the first payment due at the end of January 2018 or the beginning of February 2018. If you make the minimum payments on time, the lender expects you to make 120 monthly payments. The last monthly payment would be at the end of December 2027 or the beginning of January 2028. The lender (or the website) should provide details about the actual payment plan, grace periods, provisions for handling inability to pay due to unemployment, and other terms. In the United States, most installment loans pretend that (for purposes of calculating interest) every month has 30 days -- even February and July! Each month, 1/12 of the \"\"annual percentage rate\"\" (APR) is charged as interest. If you do the compounding, a 6.8 percent APR corresponds to (1 + 0.068 / 12)^12 - 1 = 7.016 percent \"\"annual percentage yield\"\" (APY). Also, the APR is understated. The 6.8 percent applies to the full balance (including the loan fees), even though the borrower only gets the amount minus the loan fees. The 6.8 percent rate is useful for doing calculations after the loan fees have been charged, though. These calculations include the capitalized interest and the monthly payment amounts. A true calculation of the APR would take the loan fees into account, and give a higher number than 6.8 percent. But the corrected APR would not be useful for calculating the capitalized interest, nor for calculating the monthly payment amounts.\""
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "197796",
"title": "",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "12746",
"title": "",
"text": "Among the other fine answers, you might also consider that owning a vehicle outright will free you from the requirement to carry insurance on the vehicle (you must still carry insurance on yourself in most states)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "175522",
"title": "",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name."
},
{
"docid": "155490",
"title": "",
"text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return."
},
{
"docid": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "168703",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't call it apples and oranges. This is literally an opportunity cost calculation. You can safely assume S&P500 will perform at least 11% over any 10 year period. Since failing companies are delisted and replaced with new growing companies, the market should continue to grow. No, it's not guaranteed. Lets use an aggressive number for inflation, 4%, leaving a 7% ROR estimate for S&P500. I assume OP has better credit than me, assume a rate around 3.5%. So it looks like net 3.5% ROR. The PMI erases that. You have to continue paying it until you pay off the loan. Put 20% down, get a 15 year fixed at lowest rate. Pay it off quicker."
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
},
{
"docid": "346024",
"title": "",
"text": "While C/C's have 0% interest this a good mechanism to manage debt. But they expect you will pile up a large debt and at then of the interest free period you will get hammered. So plan your exit strategy. Plan to pay off the 0% cards at the end of the int free period and pay the other cards down. Alternatively, What you could do is pay off the other cards now by drawing down on the 0% card if its possible. Then.all your debt is at 0% int. Also you are consolidating your debt into 1 account. When the int free period is over move the debt into a single personal loan if you don't plan on paying it all off immrdiatley In the meantime put you savings into an interest bearing account to maximize the value of your savings."
},
{
"docid": "37601",
"title": "",
"text": "Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency."
},
{
"docid": "137378",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what helped me. - I did my own taxes - get your own job, not from your parents, or parents friends, but entirely by yourself. Complete independence will equate to financial independence - Wikipedia (for specifics and definitions) paired with finance genre movies - audiobook, or YouTube video, 'why an economy grows, and why it doesnt' That's a good start. Good luck! Don't be too gung ho to invest and all that crap, you got lots too learn. Rule 1: don't be too eager, that's how you lose all your money! My best financial investments to date were: 1) my education (engineering) 2) I didn't pay my student loan off, instead, I bought a property, and I made $70,000 in 8 months off of one, and $100,000 off of another one in 2 years, 3) still making minimum payments on my student loan, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow 4) pack my own lunches every day, eating out every meal ends up costing more than most mortgage payments. This is in Vancouver BC, Canada."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "255703",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\""
},
{
"docid": "296607",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method."
},
{
"docid": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"docid": "567206",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\""
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "590364",
"title": "",
"text": "Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure."
},
{
"docid": "362919",
"title": "",
"text": "Refinance, definitely. Go for Fixed 15 years, which will leave you with the same remaining time for the loan that you have now, but a much lower interest (you can find below 4%, if you look hard enough). You might end up with lower payments and higher portion of interest to deduct from your taxes. win-win. If you're confident you're able to pay it off within 7 years, you can get an even better rate with an ARM 10/1 or 7/1."
},
{
"docid": "580555",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\""
},
{
"docid": "11126",
"title": "",
"text": "1) How long have you had the car? Generally, accounts that last more than a year are kept on your credit report for 7 years, while accounts that last less than a year are only kept about 2 years (IIRC - could someone correct me if that last number is wrong?). 2) Who is the financing through? If it's through a used car dealer, there's a good chance they're not even reporting it to the credit bureaus (I had this happen to me; the dealer promised he'd report the loan so it would help my credit, I made my payments on time every time, and... nothing ever showed up. It pissed me off, because another positive account on my credit report would have really helped my score). Banks and brand name dealers are more likely to report the loan. 3) What are your expected long term gains on the stocks you're considering selling, and will you have to pay capital gains on them when you do sell them? The cost of selling those stocks could possibly be higher than the gain from paying off the car, so you'll want to run the numbers for a couple different scenarios (optimistic growth, pessimistic, etc) and see if you come out ahead or not. 4) Are there prepayment penalties or costs associated with paying off the car loan early? Most reputable financiers won't include such terms (or they'll only be in effect during the first few months of the loan), but again it depends on who the loan is through. In short: it depends. I know people hate hearing answers like that, but it's true :) Hopefully though, you'll be able to sit down and look at the specifics of your situation and make an informed decision."
}
] |
5511 | Pay off car loan entirely or leave $1 until the end of the loan period? | [
{
"docid": "51873",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to work for Ally Auto (formerly known as GMAC) and I'd advise not to pay off the account unless you need to free up some debt in your credit report since until the account is paid off it will show that you owe your financial institution the original loan amount. The reason why I am saying not to pay-off the account is because good/bad payments are sent to the credit bureau 30 days after the due date of the payment, and if you want to increase your credit score then its best to pay it on a monthly basis, the negative side to this is you will pay more interest by doing this. If ever you decide to leave $1.00 in loan, I am pretty much sure that the financial institution will absorb the remaining balance and consider the account paid off. What exactly is your goal here? Do you plan to increase your credit score? Do you need to free up some debt?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "37070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\""
},
{
"docid": "288701",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot."
},
{
"docid": "329137",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \"\"cooling off period\"\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\""
},
{
"docid": "89807",
"title": "",
"text": "The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car. Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher."
},
{
"docid": "16051",
"title": "",
"text": "The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period."
},
{
"docid": "197796",
"title": "",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into."
},
{
"docid": "362919",
"title": "",
"text": "Refinance, definitely. Go for Fixed 15 years, which will leave you with the same remaining time for the loan that you have now, but a much lower interest (you can find below 4%, if you look hard enough). You might end up with lower payments and higher portion of interest to deduct from your taxes. win-win. If you're confident you're able to pay it off within 7 years, you can get an even better rate with an ARM 10/1 or 7/1."
},
{
"docid": "168703",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't call it apples and oranges. This is literally an opportunity cost calculation. You can safely assume S&P500 will perform at least 11% over any 10 year period. Since failing companies are delisted and replaced with new growing companies, the market should continue to grow. No, it's not guaranteed. Lets use an aggressive number for inflation, 4%, leaving a 7% ROR estimate for S&P500. I assume OP has better credit than me, assume a rate around 3.5%. So it looks like net 3.5% ROR. The PMI erases that. You have to continue paying it until you pay off the loan. Put 20% down, get a 15 year fixed at lowest rate. Pay it off quicker."
},
{
"docid": "137378",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what helped me. - I did my own taxes - get your own job, not from your parents, or parents friends, but entirely by yourself. Complete independence will equate to financial independence - Wikipedia (for specifics and definitions) paired with finance genre movies - audiobook, or YouTube video, 'why an economy grows, and why it doesnt' That's a good start. Good luck! Don't be too gung ho to invest and all that crap, you got lots too learn. Rule 1: don't be too eager, that's how you lose all your money! My best financial investments to date were: 1) my education (engineering) 2) I didn't pay my student loan off, instead, I bought a property, and I made $70,000 in 8 months off of one, and $100,000 off of another one in 2 years, 3) still making minimum payments on my student loan, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow 4) pack my own lunches every day, eating out every meal ends up costing more than most mortgage payments. This is in Vancouver BC, Canada."
},
{
"docid": "555280",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\""
},
{
"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": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "58005",
"title": "",
"text": "Your practice of waiting until you can pay cash is a good one. It will certainly prevent you from getting into debt! Now, to be clear, your question puts a credit card in the same category as a loan, but it doesn't have to be. You could use a credit card almost like cash, if you are careful. I'm not familiar with the system in France, but in the US, even if you are paying cash all the time, there are some benefits to getting a credit card and paying it off in full every month, instead of simply paying with cash. Some of those benefits are: One pretty big downside of having a credit card depends on your personality. Some people, once they have credit, end up spending beyond their means, and end up getting into debt. Please look into whether credit cards work the same way in France before considering the above advice. As for your question regarding getting a loan vs paying cash, that will usually be personal preference, since with a loan you can buy expensive items (such as a house or car) much sooner than you otherwise could if you waited until you saved the money. For example, it might take 10 years or more to build up enough money to purchase a house with cash, so if you don't want to wait that long, you'll need to finance it."
},
{
"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": "571198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\""
},
{
"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": "571295",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\""
},
{
"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": "397538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""
}
] |
5534 | How does “taking over payments” work? | [
{
"docid": "423272",
"title": "",
"text": "The phrase doesn't mean anything specifically. Your SO could start paying the payments, but the title and lien would remain in your name. If you wanted to change the title or lien to be in her name, you would have to sell the car to her (sales tax would be involved but the process would be relatively painless). You could sell her the car for a pretty cheap price, but not $1. (unless the depreciated value of the car was less than the rest of the loan amount). You could draft up an agreement that if you break up or something, she agrees to buy the car from you for $x dollars minus all the payments she has made on the car."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "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": "31301",
"title": "",
"text": "Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Or do I misunderstood what had been said? There has definitely been a misunderstanding as it is not that common for people to not pay medical bills. Yes, there are those that cannot afford to pay them, and that does contribute to increasing prices, but overall people do pay. I think there is an aspect to this that has not been covered by the other two answers. What is common, at least in my experience, is that medical providers (i.e. doctors, hospitals, radiology, etc) are much more likely to work with you on establishing a payment plan than utilities, credit card companies, banks, etc are. This is different than holding off payment in the hopes of negotiating a reduction in payment. I am speaking of paying the total amount, but over multiple payments, and without a penalty for paying over multiple payments. And usually they will ask you what you can afford. If you can pay $50 per month, likely that will work. And even what I do that and call to pay the monthly amount, they will ask if I will pay that or some other (including lesser) amount. Also, if I skip a month (usually from forgetting, not intentionally) there is again no additional fee. This doesn't cover ALL providers, but so far has been consistent across all of the ones I have used. I suspect this is what your colleagues were referring to."
},
{
"docid": "475267",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree, and admit that I probably assumed a bit too much context. >hate group exists for a specific hateful purpose, whereas a country does not I agree, but PayPal *is* into taking highly-publicized regional action based on social and political issues. For example, consider the transgender bathroom rights issue taking place in North Carolina last year. Not even close to every resident of the State supported it, yet PayPal made State-level decisions based on it—such as their choice to pull out of plans for a new global headquarters in Charlotte, NC. See here: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/05/technology/paypal-north-carolina-lgbt/index.html If all residents in Saudia Arabia don't believe in discrimination, and therefore PayPal doesn't exclude business with the country as a whole :: Then all residents of NC not agreeing with another form of discrimination shouldn't exclude business from NC as a whole—yet it did. The difference? PayPal isn't going to lose a recurring amount of money by moving their operations to a different State, especially when they haven't really laid down too much sunk cost. Cessation of payment processing, on the other hand, would have had an impact on their bottom line. They like to flex their Political and Social Opinion, but seem to be very cost-effective in how they choose to do so. I respect them for taking initiative to use their influence to impact the world in a way they see most-fit, but I also believe that many people over-applaud or over-blame them. PayPal isn't risking business for causes in the same way that a soldier might risk their life for a cause—they're only risking their reputation like a Politician might in openly supporting or opposing a war."
},
{
"docid": "295507",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Those \"\"haters\"\" are trying to convince you away from making a poor investment. It would honestly be unethical for us not to. Tell you what. Meet with these people in real life. Take a tour of their current operations. Do your due diligence. Ask them hard questions. Like. Why they need to reach out to friends for investment, rather than a venture capitalist or a bank loan? At worst they are lying and it is fraud. At best they are in over their head with bad business sense and you're about to get sucked into it. Just because weed in general is going to take off, does not mean YOUR weed shop is going to take off. Example: Smartphones have taken over the world. Microsoft recently axed its windows phone because it did not work out for them. Your weed shop could be the iphone of weed. It also could be the windows phone of weed. I know you've gone over how he has experienced high demand. There's a saying we like here: Past performance is not indicative of future results. Its entirely possible a large retail chain (Amazon perhaps?) could enter the market and undercut you to the point that you are making a loss.\""
},
{
"docid": "426705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Okay so I am going to break this answer into a couple sections: Okay so first things first. Did you get a good deal? This is challenging to answer for a number of reasons. First, a good deal is relative to the buyers goals. If you're attempting to buy an asset that provides passive income then maybe you met your goal and got a good deal. If you're attempting to buy an asset that provides long term growth, and you purchased above market (I'm speculating of course) then you may have made a bad deal. So how do you determine if you got a good deal? Does your \"\"Gross Rental Multiplier\"\" equal that or is less than that of the average GRM in your area. The lower the better. So how do you use the GRM to determine if you're getting a good deal? Divide your purchase price by the average city (or area) GRM and that will tell you what you should be getting annually in rent. You can also use the GRM to determine if a future purchase is over or under priced. Just replace purchase price with asking price. Alright, so these are the tools you can use to decide if you made a bad business deal or not. There are many ways to skin a cat so to speak. These are the tools I use BEFORE I purchase a home. Many people are penny wise and pound foolish. Take your time when making large purchases. It's OKAY to say PASS. Okay next thing is this new purchase you're looking at. The number one rule when working a franchise is you don't open a second store until you have a perfect working model to go off of. If you've never had to file a tax return for your current rental. Then you need to wait. If you've never read your local and state rental laws. Then you need to WAIT. If you've never had to leave an event early, wake up in the middle of the night, or get a text while you're on a date from one of your tenants. THEN YOU NEED TO WAIT. Give it a year or two. Just learn the unknown about rental properties. Use your first as your test bed. It's WAY more cheaper then if you make a bad mistake and roll it over multiple properties. Finally I will leave you with this. No one on this site, myself included, knows everything there is to know about real estate. Anyone that claims they do, send their ass packing. This is a complex COMPLEX business. There is always something to learn and if you don't have the passion to continue learning then hand it off to someone who does. There is tax law, rental law, city repair law, contract law and this doesn't even include the stuff that makes you money, like knowing how to leverage low or no money down loans. Please take some time and go out and learn. Good luck! -AR\""
},
{
"docid": "427044",
"title": "",
"text": "You absolutely can be put in jail in America for debt... if that debt is to a government or government agency (like a municipal government). If you have unpaid court costs, fines, etc., it's common practice in most municipalities to issue an arrest warrant for those, even if non-payment is due to being indigent. In a lot of cases, even if you show up to explain why you can't pay or make a partial payment on the due date, you'll be arrested and jailed until a judge is available to hear your explanation, if one isn't available right when you go in. What's supposed to happen is that if you're indigent (can't pay), a judge will hear your explanation and, provided it's determined that you're indigent, make adjustments to what you owe (cancel or reduce the amount, extend the due date, setup a payment plan, etc.) and send you on your way. It bears mentioning that even in cases where the system works like it should, there's still a very real chance of being put in jail, which isn't harmless - people can and do lose their jobs while they're sitting in jail waiting to plead indigence to a judge. And of course, what's supposed to happen isn't what always does. The police shootings of the past couple years in Missouri have shone some light in a lot of dark corners down there, where there are, in fact, de-facto debtor prisons in many municipalities. In addition to civil rights groups filing suit over this in many Missouri municipalities, the US Department of Justice has filed suit against the city of Ferguson over their municipal practices (including their use of the courts and jails to generate municipal revenue). Some forms of private debt (like child support) also fall under this umbrella where an arrest warrant will be issued for failure to pay for any reason, and this was determined to be a factor in the Walter Scott shooting - Walter Scott ran to avoid being put in jail over child support debt, and losing his job while in jail. The New York Times highlighted his case in an article titled: Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat. Rodney Scott said that he sometimes thought his brother did not do everything he could to catch up, but that Walter seemed to consider it a hopeless cause. He recalled seeing his brother plead to a judge that he just did not make enough money. “He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”"
},
{
"docid": "470587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return. When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well. When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return. You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be. If you think you can \"\"game the system\"\" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money). If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power. Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not \"\"hedge\"\" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate. The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in \"\"real\"\" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your \"\"reinvestment rate\"\" (the return you can get from investing the \"\"borrowed\"\" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk). When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no \"\"optimal\"\" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest).\""
},
{
"docid": "453074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This does not directly address the question, but how the Bank views your behaviour is not the same as a credit reporting bureau. If you do not \"\"go deep\"\" on your card at all, you may be deemed not to be exercising the facility, indeed they may ask you to reduce your credit limit. This is not the same as \"\"missing a payment\"\". At the same time, do not just make the minimum payment. Ideally you should clear it within 3 months. Think of it as a very short term line of credit. Not clearing the balance within three months (or turning it over) demonstrates a cash flow problem, as does clearing it from another card. Some banks call this \"\"kite flying\"\" after similar behaviour in older days with cheque accounts. If you use the credit and show you can pay it off, you should never need to ask for a credit increase, it will be offered. The Bureau will be informed of these offers. Also, depending upon how much the bank trusts you, the Bureau may see a \"\"monthly\"\" periodic credit review, which is good if you have no delinquencies. Amex does this as a rule.\""
},
{
"docid": "156477",
"title": "",
"text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works."
},
{
"docid": "340044",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This article is bogus. There may be companies where you would experience what the author describes, but it's not true where I work (I manage a department of 54 in a megacompany with 350k employees worldwide). \"\"The books are cooked. Corporate boards must approve labor budgets, raises, and bonuses pretty early in the calendar year. \"\" It's true that the total department budget is set, for example, by June. You might take 4% of everyone's salaries and reserve that for raises to be allocated in the future. That doesn't mean everyone gets 4% increase, though. Some may not be eligible for increase--for example, if they've been there for 6 months or less. Some may underperform, meaning they get 2% or 0%. And some may exceed expectations, so they get 6%. Performance definitely matters. \"\"Nobody knows how to talk about performance.\"\" Well, that's quite a blanket statement, isn't it? True, it's /difficult/ to talk about a person's performance. And there's certainly room for managers to improve /their/ performance and ability to give feedback. But I've had plenty of bosses that know how to give good feedback and do so throughout the year (not just a year-end). I also believe that I'm pretty good at it--at least my employees have indicated that I'm improving :) \"\"Unfortunately, you are not as fabulous as the executives in your company. Large bonuses are given at the top, which means that someone needs to be held accountable. Even if you've met and exceeded your goals for the year, that someone is you.\"\" I'm not even sure how to respond to that one. The author needs some holiday cheer, I think. Large bonuses are given at the top, true. What does that have to do with a not-at-the-top employee's accountability? The points don't seem to be related. \"\"Managers really love forced ranking.\"\" Not true. Forced ranking sucks, isn't fun and is difficult. I believe good managers care for all of their employees. (Bad managers are something else altogether...) \"\"Even if you rock, there isn't much money to go around\"\" The first accurate sentence in the article, woohoo! However, the author doesn't take into account at all that money isn't everything. Surveys of what motivates employees consistently shows that money isn't number one. Things like having a challenging job and working on important products usually come out over dollars-and-cents. And hey, we've built a real crappy economy. What do you expect? \"\"As you participate in the end-of-year performance management process, the best thing you can do is to stay neutral, remain dispassionate, and be quiet.\"\" I really take issue with this statement. DON'T DO THAT (please). Use the opportunity you have with your boss to discuss her or his expectations and what you can change so that you meet them or exceed them. If you're already exceeding expectations, ask how you can take on new work, how you can contribute to the welfare of your fellow employees. This is how you get ahead. \"\"Nobody really gets rich, anymore, from being a regular employee.\"\" Getting rich depends on how you spend and save, not so much on how much you make.\""
},
{
"docid": "252471",
"title": "",
"text": "I believe that article provides some good reasons, though it may be a bit light on technical details and there are likely other reasons a company would do it. So, if they can finance for less then they would lose to taxes by bringing the money home and they do not take on too much debt, this will likely work just fine and increase share holder value. Hopefully, someone else can provide some other reasonable scenarios. The bottom line is that it does not matter how they finance the share buybacks and/or dividend payments as long as they do not shoot themselves in the foot while doing it."
},
{
"docid": "155876",
"title": "",
"text": "Depends on your company, I guess, because FP&A in our company doesn't do a significant amount of accounting. Take all of this with a grain of salt because I haven't been in the FP&A group, but if I were to rank how much accounting work is done by each finance group from most to least it would be [insert outsourced AP/AR/etc. here], controllers, tax, finance in the business (like embedded in another group), treasury, FP&A, then trading. Your company may be different, but in my company the FP&A team isn't really booking entries, even if they're looking into a lot of GL accounts to aid in their work. Are you trying to avoid SAP altogether, or do you want to stop doing research in it, or do you just want to stop booking debits and credits? Because almost every lower level role in finance as a whole is at least going to have the research and data gathering part in system, and that's primarily the extent of what FP&A does as far as their work in SAP. Treasury has more responsibility in SAP/other systems because we actually have to go correct entries or make some payments on occasion."
},
{
"docid": "129362",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all any loan will have the last payment be slightly different than the rest. Even if the interest rate is zero it is hard to have a perfect monthly payment amount. By perfect I mean the amount of the loan divided by the number of months would be $ddd.cc0000... When looking at the amortization table the last payment will either be slightly higher or lower to adjust for the rounding that was done. My suspicion is that the rounding would have resulted in a left over 12 cents. It is also possible that you are paying it off slightly early and the computer is simply taking the leftover amount an spreading it over the remaining period of the loan. You could be paying it early because for the main part of the loan was paid to a company that rounds all payments to the higher dollar, or has a minimum monthly payment amount. I looked at the company you mentioned in the question, and searched the site for an amortization tool. I found it, and used the pre-filled in example. https://www.edfinancial.com/amortizationschedule?pmts=120&intr=6.8&prin=25000 If that last payment is not adjusted the borrower will still owe $0.12. The fact it equals your situation is a coincidence. But is does show what can happen."
},
{
"docid": "599499",
"title": "",
"text": "This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)"
},
{
"docid": "271459",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a \"\"Line of credit\"\" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call \"\"overdraft protection\"\". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:\""
},
{
"docid": "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": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
},
{
"docid": "565367",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\""
},
{
"docid": "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.\""
}
] |
5534 | How does “taking over payments” work? | [
{
"docid": "421136",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think this phrase originates from when it was common to have an assumable mortgage. In that case, you would \"\"take over payments\"\" and the loan would become yours. From Investopedia: Assumable Mortgage: A type of financing arrangement in which the outstanding mortgage and its terms can be transferred from the current owner to a buyer. By assuming the previous owner's remaining debt, the buyer can avoid having to obtain his or her own mortgage.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "37189",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money. When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money). Deposit and savings account are considered \"\"on-demand\"\" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time. This is a strange type of loan, is it not? No other loan works this way. There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc.. The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending.\""
},
{
"docid": "565367",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\""
},
{
"docid": "521014",
"title": "",
"text": "If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work."
},
{
"docid": "129676",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high."
},
{
"docid": "192602",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying the minimum balance on a loan can be DEVASTATING and is highly UN-RECOMMENDED. It is important you understand your loan and the terms associated with it. Loans are given for a period of time but if you pay the minimum it does NOT mean you will pay it all off by the end. When paying a loan money is applied to the interest first and any extra amount is then applied to the principle. Here's an example: If I have a $12 loan for 1 year. The interest is 100%. My minimum payment each month is $1. If I pay that minimum only I will be stuck paying $12 at the end of the loan. Why you ask? because each month I'm being charged $1 interest and the payment I am making is only going towards that interest. However if I paid $2 instead now $1 goes to the principal (the original $12 I borrowed). This means that next month I will only be charged interest on $11 dollars instead of $12. You need to know how much is going towards the interest of your loan and how much is going towards the principle you can speak with your bank about this and they will help you understand. In many cases they actually provide you with the numbers on your statment with examples of how long it would take to payoff your loan with minimum only and how long it would take if you added an extra x amount each month. I recommend using the Snowball Method to pay of your debt. It's simple and effective. How much you should add to each monthly payment depends on how much you can afford to add. Here are some calculators you can play around with: CNN Money Bank Rate Calc Edit: So with the additional information you provided we can estimate that you have about 2200 free cash flow each month(that's your cash after you pay all your bills). We can put away 500 each month for a rainy day fund, just to be safe.(job loss, accidents, or anything we can't predict) So assuming that is all your expenses including the money you spend on entertainment. That leaves you with $1700 you can add on to your loan payments. So you can pay off your third loan in 1 month. Then add the remaining balance to the 2nd loan. With this income it should take you less then a year to pay off all your loans."
},
{
"docid": "214126",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Based on your information... The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case) Your payment term is 30 years. Your interest rate is about 7.35%. Your payments are about $895.66 Your total payments will total $322,438.95 That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors). Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you. The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over *thirty years.* That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank *can't* invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc. A good rule to keep in mind is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling. In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years. Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.\""
},
{
"docid": "447676",
"title": "",
"text": "Source: Business owner for 13 years. Unfortunately you may be hard-pressed to get that money back. You can try sending him to collections, but at that point it often starts to cost you more than what he owes you, in my experience. In the worst instance I lost $2100 on a single invoice that I never received a dime for. Nearly 20 hours of my time wasted for nothing! A bit of unsolicited advice: I've found that when working on a service-basis, obtaining billing and payment info up front and taking a deposit makes sense. I take 1 hour's worth of deposit and bill the rest after. Not only does it verify the payment method works, but it also gives you a way to confirm the customer's ability to pay in the future. If the customer balks at this, just walk away. It's not worth the risk. As a business, your goal is to make money in exchange for goods or services. If your customers don't understand that and aren't willing to front a bit of money to secure your services, you'll likely going to lose time and money."
},
{
"docid": "337286",
"title": "",
"text": "\"We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift. I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns. Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his. That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own. This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan. It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan. And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you. At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment. So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split. I expected it to be considerably lower. The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the \"\"rent\"\" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan. With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity. With 3.5%, about 40% equity. I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses. Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share. Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially. The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars. Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%. It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment. The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment. If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent. It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment. If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment. If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out. And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms. But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house. If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation. He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary. You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment. So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on. And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house.\""
},
{
"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": "107068",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year). I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time."
},
{
"docid": "474573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\""
},
{
"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": "327441",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \"\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\"\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \"\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\"\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \"\"don't plan on ever using credit again\"\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \"\"responsibility partner\"\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\""
},
{
"docid": "592192",
"title": "",
"text": "My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less."
},
{
"docid": "299591",
"title": "",
"text": "The home owner does not start foreclosure, the bank decides when to foreclose. Therefore you cannot really decide a time to foreclose if you are trying to time the decision. The process You miss payments, and the banks will send you a late notice for the missing payments. Expect many notices. The bank will call you at home, on your cell phone and at work. They will mail you letters regarding the missing payments. If you continue to miss payments, the bank will probably demand the loan be paid in full. You will owe the bank the full balance of the principle, all past due interest, all past due late charges and junk fees. The bank won't even take a normal monthly payment from you should you try to pay your regular payment again. Some law enforcement will notify you on the bank's intent to foreclose. The bank has begun legal proceedings. Legal notices are published in the local newspaper. Soon the notices and the legal waiting period will expire. Court proceedings happen. The court will then allow the bank to foreclose. Notices to into the paper again about the updated status of the foreclosure. The house is sold at auction. Money from the auction is used to pay taxes owned, then mortgages, then other liens or creditors who file. Further debt for the home owner Taxes When sold, if the mortgage debt exceeds the home's fair market value, US Federal Tax rules say the selling price as the fair market value. The fair market value can still be higher than the tax basis (which I think is the value of the house at the time of original purchase plus improvements.). If the fair market value is higher, you will own taxes on sale. However tax rules in the US say if you have owned the home more than two years and make less than $250,000 in the transaction ($500,000 if married) you will not owe any tax. State taxes can be different. Additionally, if the mortgage lender forgives the debt and doesn't create a deficiency, that income is taxable as well. This is more an more common these days. There are exceptions if the home is your primary residence. This whole process an take several months to occur, but depends on where you live. If you continue to live in the home after the auction, the new owner must evict you from the property which is another set of legal proceedings. Your credit and ability to buy are home will be damaged for the next several years. I am not so sure on how PMI works for the banks, but I know they are getting some money back."
},
{
"docid": "313623",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on the deal: and you didn't give any details. That said, there are some things that stand out regardless, and some more specific answers to your questions. First, Mortgage rates (at the bank) are absurdly low right now. Like 4%-5%; less than 4% for excellent credit. You say your credit is ok, so unless your landlord is willing to do a deal where they get no benefit (beyond the price of the house), the bank is the way to go. If you don't have much for a down payment, go with an FHA loan, where you need only 3.5% down. Second, there is another option in between bank mortgage and rent-to-own. And that is that where your landlord \"\"carries the note\"\". Basically, there is a mortgage, and it works like a bank mortgage, but instead of the bank owning the mortgage, your landlord does. Now, in terms of them carrying all of it, this isn't really helpful. Who wants to make 3-4% interest? But, there is an interesting opportunity here. With your ok credit, you can probably get pretty close to 4% interest at the bank IF the loan is for 80% LTV (loan to value; that is, 20% equity). At 80% LTV you also won't have PMI, so between the two that loan will be very cheap. Then, your accommodating landlord can \"\"carry\"\" the rest at, say, 6-7% interest, junior to the bank mortgage (meaning if you default, the bank gets first dibs on the value of the house). Under that scenario, your over all interest payment is very reasonable, and you wouldn't have to put any money down. Now for your other questions: If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: \"\"Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!\"\" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side. How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)\""
},
{
"docid": "16626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\""
},
{
"docid": "338606",
"title": "",
"text": "Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)... As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable, this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time, I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you."
},
{
"docid": "488994",
"title": "",
"text": "As you say, if you delay paying your bills, your liabilities will increase. Like say your bills total $10,000 per month. If you normally pay after 30 days, then your short-term liabilities will be $10,000. If you stretch that out to pay after 60 days, then you will be carrying two months worth of bills as a short-term liability, or $20,000. Your liabilities go up. Assume you keep the same amount of cash on hand after you stretch out your payments like this as you did before. Now your liabilities are higher but your assets are the same, so your working capital goes down. For example, suppose you kept $25,000 in the bank before this change and you still keep $30,000 after. Then before your working capital was $25,000 minus $10,000, or $15,000. After it is $25,000 minus $20,000, or only $5,000. So how does this relate to cash flow? While presumably if the company has $10,000 per month in bills, and their bank balance remains at $25,000 month after month, then they must have $10,000 per month in income that's going to pay those bills, or the bank balance would be going down. So now if they DON'T pay that $10,000 in bills this month, but the bank account doesn't go up by $10,000, then they must have spent the $10,000 on something else. That is, they have converted that money from an on-going balance into cash flow. Note that this is a one-time trick. If you stretch out your payment time from 30 days to 60 days, then you are now carrying 2 months worth of bills on your books instead of 1. So the first month that you do this -- if you did it all at once for all your bills -- you would just not pay any bills that month. But then you would have to resume paying the bills the next month. It's not like you're adding $10,000 to your cash flow every month. You're adding $10,000 to your cash flow the month that you make the change. Then you return to equilibrium. To increase your cash flow every month this way, you would have to continually increase the time it takes you to pay your bills: 30 days this month, 45 days the next, 60 the next, then 75, 90, etc. Pretty soon your bills are 20 years past due and no one wants to do business with you any more. Normally people see an action like this as an emergency measure to get over a short-term cash crunch. Adopting it as a long-term policy seems very short-sighted to me, creating a long-term relationship problem with your suppliers in exchange for a one-shot gain. But then, I'm not a big corporate finance officer."
}
] |
5549 | Pros / cons of being more involved with IRA investments [duplicate] | [
{
"docid": "286227",
"title": "",
"text": "diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "114694",
"title": "",
"text": "What if patents were kept a secret for, say, the first year or more? Then, if anyone was able to duplicate the patent once seen in the wild without the recipe within that timeframe the patent becomes void. The whole purpose of the patent system was to bring difficult ideas out of being trade secrets and into the public's hands for their benefit with the offer of exclusivity for some time to keep the exchange fair. If anyone can duplicate one-click without any hand-holding just by using Amazon.com once or twice, there was nothing to be gained from the patent in the first place. It should have remained a trade secret."
},
{
"docid": "216356",
"title": "",
"text": "The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be."
},
{
"docid": "512827",
"title": "",
"text": "As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/"
},
{
"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": "168226",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-income-the-flood-217db9889c07) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > We have at least hints from current behavior that UBI may be fundamentally attacking the wrong problem and I think many UBI advocates under-appreciate this. > If the total UBI system cost as a percent of tax receipts becomes large, UBI may preclude these things from ever being built. > I have a big list of pro/con worked out for Basic Jobs/Agriculture, which will eventually be Part 2.I would be happy to read any thoughts, especially about uncommon UBI plusses or alternatives. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788a7w/after_universal_basic_income_the_flood/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233563 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*: **UBI**^#1 **people**^#2 **money**^#3 **more**^#4 **problem**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "268699",
"title": "",
"text": "Ok. I'll ask - Does the job offer a 401(k)? Matching deposits? You see, the answers given depend on your risk tolerance. There are two schools of thought, one extreme will tell you not to start investing until you have the emergency fund set up, the other, start from day one. I accept there are pros and cons to either approach. But - if you have access to a matched 401(k), even a conservative, risk-adverse approach might agree that a 100% match (on the first say 5% of your income) is preferable to saving in a low return emergency fund. If the emergency occurs, a low interest loan for the need is a cheap way out. Since the money goes in pre-tax and is matched, being able to borrow out half (IRS rules) effectively lets you borrow more than you deposited out of pocket. And the word emergency implies a low occurrence event. Deposit to the match and start the emergency fund in another account. If no matched 401(k) at work, the other two answers are great. Edit - To clarify, and answer a comment below - say the risk isn't just a money emergency, but job loss. $1000 deposited to the 401(k) cost $850 out of pocket, assuming 15% bracket. After the match, it's $2000. After the job loss, if this is withdrawn, if the 15% still applies (it may be 10% or even 0%) the net is $1700 less the 10% penalty, or $1500 back in your pocket. There are those who will say they are just not comfortable running an emergency account so lean, I understand that. For the OP here, $800/mo is nearly $10,000 per year. If even half of that can be deposited pre-tax and matched, the account will grow very quickly and there would still be cash on the side."
},
{
"docid": "224320",
"title": "",
"text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?"
},
{
"docid": "300242",
"title": "",
"text": "What should I do? Weigh your options and decide which education investment lines up better with your goals. Some of the costs from pursuing a degree at the more reputable university may include: However there are probably some benefits to pursuing a degree at this university: You will know best which of these apply to you in addition to any pros or cons not mentioned. You need to evaluate each one in order to make a decision."
},
{
"docid": "336394",
"title": "",
"text": "The main restrictions you see with IRA's involve contributions, and not the actual investments themselves. I would be indifferent to having a single investment across multiple accounts. It might be a bit trickier to manage, especially if your strategy involves some specific asset allocation. Other than account management though, there's no big issue."
},
{
"docid": "94710",
"title": "",
"text": "PenFed Platinum Cashback Rewards Visa Card is another good choice. Pros: Cons:"
},
{
"docid": "141120",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't control the number of special interest groups. You can't control their stubbornness, animosity, or lack of foresight. What you can do is limit how and when special interest groups can press their views. Create a new team whose whole job is to field lobbying before it gets to congress. They see all the new bills, etc. and boil them down to simple terms, pros, and cons, before presenting them to congress. The final version must also be signed off on by the lobbying party before it is presented. You need a second party in this group: The Devil's Advocates - a group that is REQUIRED to argue against EVERY proposal. The whole reason for this group is to ensure that no proposal passes without contest. You need a group whose whole goal is to identify the impact of each proposal, and return the findings to fielders. They also require a devil's advocate. When the final proposal is signed off on, then the fielding group presents it to congress, not the lobbyists or their supporters. The funding for these groups comes directly from the lobbyists, who must finance their bill through congress, unless special exception is made. If a ton of special interest groups want to get their form in, they must wait their turn in line. The less work the fielding group has to do to clean up their request, validate it, and discover the pros and cons, the faster the lobby request will go through. This is just a rough idea off the top of my head. What are the issues you see with it?"
},
{
"docid": "260385",
"title": "",
"text": "We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked."
},
{
"docid": "315741",
"title": "",
"text": "It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals."
},
{
"docid": "521095",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\""
},
{
"docid": "461933",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. 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. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never \"\"taxed\"\"). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the \"\"earnings\"\" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the \"\"earnings\"\" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is \"\"earnings\"\" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the \"\"earnings\"\" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 \"\"earnings\"\" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level.\""
},
{
"docid": "248235",
"title": "",
"text": "Accredited investors are required to have 1 million in assets (not including primary residence) or $200,000/yr income for the last 3 years. These kinds of regulations come from the SEC, not the company involved, which means the SEC thinks it's a risky investment. If I recall correctly, [someone I know] had to submit evidence of being an accredited investor to trade options on [his] IRA. It may be that this is related to the classification of the options."
},
{
"docid": "402174",
"title": "",
"text": "I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons"
},
{
"docid": "488037",
"title": "",
"text": "Money Manager Ex PROS: CONS"
},
{
"docid": "436548",
"title": "",
"text": "It's no coincidence that the companies really putting muscle behind this are some of the biggest in the world (Google, IBM, EY). As the article points out, they're bypassing colleges altogether to better access the best available talent. With the mega resources those companies have, all training can be provided on site. There's no need to wait 3-5 years to hire when they can do it now. There are definitely pros and cons to this, but it certainly levels the playing field. In theory, someone from a inner-city ghetto may outperform an ivy league graduate in a well-designed competency test, proving their worth based on merit rather than money. I expect it's something that will slowly begin to catch on as more businesses spot the opportunity."
}
] |
5549 | Pros / cons of being more involved with IRA investments [duplicate] | [
{
"docid": "309361",
"title": "",
"text": "Let’s compare your target fund, FFFFX to a well-known ETF, SPY; SPDR S&P 500 ETF. Source: Yahoo Finance The difference in performance over a longer time-frame is significant, You can and should carefully research better funds in order to improve performance. FULL DISCLOSURE: My own IRA is at Fidelity. Less than 10% of my IRA is in Fidelity mutual funds. None is in FFFFX."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "512827",
"title": "",
"text": "As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/"
},
{
"docid": "380474",
"title": "",
"text": "GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:"
},
{
"docid": "375325",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They are under the radar, but are very strong in Europe and Asia. Deal size will be middle market transactions in North America, a stark contrast to its accounting clients. The good: -established pipeline from accounting and consulting partners & contacts -much better work life balance than most IBs, no 100 hour weeks -widely known name brand -experience working on more than straight forward sell side deals; people underestimate the knowledge and skills you learn through being involved in turnarounds, refinancings, buy side advisory, etc. Cons: -exit opportunities are more limited -pay will be below street -partner \"\"buy in\"\" can be incredibly frustrating I will say that generally KPMG prefers CPAs (even for non-accounting positions) and requires 3-4 years of experience. But, considering you have the interview, they felt you were worth talking with.\""
},
{
"docid": "374518",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\""
},
{
"docid": "598807",
"title": "",
"text": "Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford. Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house. This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home. If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase. Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise."
},
{
"docid": "56027",
"title": "",
"text": "As with everything else, it's a question of trade-offs. Pros For Buying In Bulk Cons For Buying In Bulk Inventory cost. You need to purchase more shelving/cupboards to stock the goods. This is a real cost. The psychological effect of having more means you are more likely to use more, thus costing you more. Deflation of the cost of the item should occur over time in a well-functioning market economy. A $10 item today might be $9.50 in one year in real terms. There is a real opportunity cost associated with overbuying. Granted, an extra $100 in your bank account won't be earning too much if you have to spend it one month later, but it does mean you have less financial independence for that month. Risk of spoilage. There is a nonzero risk that your goods could be ruined by flood/fire/toddler/klutz damage. You need to decide which of these pros and cons are more important to you. Financially, you should only buy what you need between shopping trips. In reality the convenience of holding goods in storage for when you need them may outweigh the costs."
},
{
"docid": "436548",
"title": "",
"text": "It's no coincidence that the companies really putting muscle behind this are some of the biggest in the world (Google, IBM, EY). As the article points out, they're bypassing colleges altogether to better access the best available talent. With the mega resources those companies have, all training can be provided on site. There's no need to wait 3-5 years to hire when they can do it now. There are definitely pros and cons to this, but it certainly levels the playing field. In theory, someone from a inner-city ghetto may outperform an ivy league graduate in a well-designed competency test, proving their worth based on merit rather than money. I expect it's something that will slowly begin to catch on as more businesses spot the opportunity."
},
{
"docid": "344740",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\""
},
{
"docid": "80272",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm currently using Halifax. Pros: Cons: I'm might start using TD Waterhouse in future, as they claim to have no admin charge."
},
{
"docid": "587778",
"title": "",
"text": "Freezing your credit should be the default configuration. EDIT: More info on Why. Basically you're adding a password to your credit report access. https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/identity-theft-monitoring-services 4. Is there a low-cost alternative to monitoring services? The best low-cost alternative to credit monitoring services is a security freeze. A security freeze locks your credit files at the three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) until you unlock your file with a password or PIN. The freeze stops new accounts from being established by imposters because potential creditors are not able to check your credit report or credit score, the standard procedure when financial accounts are opened. Any potential creditors’ requests for access to your credit files will be denied. However, a security freeze cannot stop misuse of your existing bank or credit accounts. You still must check the monthly statements on your current accounts for any erroneous charges or debits. Generally, you will pay no more than $30 for a lifetime of security freeze protection. In some circumstances (identity theft victims and senior citizens in some states), this protection may be free. With a security freeze, your credit reports cannot be seen by prospective creditors, insurance companies, landlords, utilities, or for employment screening. However, you may lift the freeze when necessary to allow a company to check your credit report. This is easily done by means of a password. It is important to realize that a security freeze does not prevent existing creditors from seeing your credit report. While a security freeze may be the best available deterrent to new account fraud, it may not be the best solution for everyone. It can be cumbersome for individuals who frequently apply for credit, are contemplating a new mortgage, or who plan to change jobs. On the other hand, a security freeze is particularly well-suited for seniors who are no longer in the market for new credit. And a freeze provides protection for individuals affected by data breaches involving Social Security numbers, as well as victims of identity theft or mail theft. For a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of security freezes, read this report in Consumer Reports. Brian Krebs' post How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze is a primer on what you can do to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft. Fees, supporting documentation, and procedures for placing a security freeze vary from state to state and among the three credit reporting agencies. The web sites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. The websites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. Equifax Experian TransUnion"
},
{
"docid": "94496",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account."
},
{
"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": "459589",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA."
},
{
"docid": "248235",
"title": "",
"text": "Accredited investors are required to have 1 million in assets (not including primary residence) or $200,000/yr income for the last 3 years. These kinds of regulations come from the SEC, not the company involved, which means the SEC thinks it's a risky investment. If I recall correctly, [someone I know] had to submit evidence of being an accredited investor to trade options on [his] IRA. It may be that this is related to the classification of the options."
},
{
"docid": "209716",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, you can just say that 1 dollar contributed = one share and pay out dividends based on number of shares. That makes it pretty easy to make things fair based. There are pros and cons with this pooling approach."
},
{
"docid": "279121",
"title": "",
"text": "From what these people are saying, it is impossible for you to put $5,500 in if it were a Roth though, because the money has to be taxed. You are correct that this is wrong. You can still put $5,500 in a Roth - the tax payment comes when you file, not when you make the investment. This is when the Roth is better than a Traditional IRA, when you can invest the max either way. Yes you get the tax break for the Traditional investment, and if you invest the tax savings you'll be in the same spot, all else being equal. If you only have a certain amount (after taxes) to invest, say $3,000 in a 25% marginal tax bracket, then it works out the same either way. You can either invest $3,000 in a Roth and let it grow tax free, or put $4,000 in a traditional IRA since you can deduct $1,000 (15%) from your taxes when you file. Then your tax-adjusted balance when you withdraw is the same, since you'll have a lot more (33% more in fact) in your traditional IRA but will have to pay tax on the withdrawals."
},
{
"docid": "453524",
"title": "",
"text": "This is what is called a Structured Product. The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons. They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked. All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies. She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested. Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product. There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available. I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income."
},
{
"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": "109025",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It sounds like you are describing \"\"seller-financed\"\" mortgages (also sometimes called \"\"self-financed\"\", where \"\"self\"\" is the seller). In essence the buyer and seller enter into a legal contract (a promissory note) that specifies the payment schedule, interest rate, etc. The nature of the agreement is similar to the kind of mortgage agreement you'd get from the bank, but no bank is involved; it's just an agreeement directly between the buyer and seller. If you search for \"\"seller-financed mortgage\"\" or \"\"self-financed mortgage\"\" you can find a good deal more info about this kind of arrangement. Here is a useful article from Investopedia, here is one from Forbes, and here is one from Nolo. Broadly speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of seller financing are two sides of the same coin: by doing the agreement yourself without bank involvement, you can cut out procedural red tape, delays, and requirements that a bank might insist on --- but in so doing you may expose yourself to risks that those procedures are designed to shield you from. Most obviously, as the seller, you receive only the down payment up front (not the entire purchase price, as you would if the buyer got a bank loan), and if the buyer doesn't follow through on the agreement, you're on your own as far as starting foreclosure, etc. You can read up on some of the linked pages for more details about the pros and cons. In general, as those pages note, seller-financed mortgages are relatively rare. A home is a big purchase, and if you don't know what you're doing it's easy to screw up in a way that could cost you a large amount of money if things go wrong.\""
}
] |
5585 | Is there any site you can find out about the 'bonus features' of credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "300117",
"title": "",
"text": "Billshrink offers some pretty neat analysis tools to help you pick a credit card. They focus more on rewards than the features you mention but it might be worth a look. If you use Mint, they offer a similar service, too. If you're not already using Mint, though, I'd look at Billshrink as Mint requires some extensive setup. MOD EDIT Looks like billshrink.com is shut down. From their site: Dear BillShrink customer, As you may have heard, BillShrink.com was shut down on July 31, 2013. While we’re sad to say goodbye, we hope we’ve been able to help you be better informed and save some money along the way! The good news is that much of the innovative award-winning BillShrink technology will still be available via our StatementRewards platform (made available to customers by our partnering financial institutions). Moreover, we expect to re-launch a new money-saving service in the future. To see more of what we’re up to, visit Truaxis.com. We have deleted your personal information as of July 31. We will retain your email address only to announce a preview of the new tool. If you do not want us to retain your email address, you can opt out in the form below. This opt out feature will be available until September 31, 2013. If you have already opted out previously, you do not need to opt out again. If you have any further questions, contact us at [email protected]. Thanks, The BillShrink/Truaxis Team"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "297288",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\""
},
{
"docid": "63366",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples."
},
{
"docid": "337817",
"title": "",
"text": "I've seen credit cards that provide you your credit score for free, updated once a month and even charted over the last year. Unfortunately the bank I used to have this card with was bought and the purchasing bank discontinued the feature. Perhaps someone out there knows of some cards that still offer a feature like this?"
},
{
"docid": "223030",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've had this problem (but not this bad), so this is what worked for me: 1)Remove all of your saved credit card information from any shopping site. Convenience is a huge enabler. 2)Physically track your spending on non-essentials. Keep a little journal of it. I found that actually writing it out and the total made me take note of it more. 3) I joined a saving/investing app that I contribute towards a Roth IRA and a savings account. Sometimes when that \"\"extra\"\" money in my checking account is burning a hole in my pocket, I'll contribute that extra money. It still feels nice and it's going towards good things. 4) Develop a hobby that doesn't overly tax your wallet. This might go towards making you feel better and thus make you less prone to retail therapy. As for getting yourself out of credit card debt, can you sell off the meaningless material things you've been buying and put that money to paying down your debt?\""
},
{
"docid": "253373",
"title": "",
"text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)."
},
{
"docid": "20432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would hold off on making that threat (closing your account). First, because as others have said, it's not likely to help. And second, assuming you're willing to make good on that threat, you should only play that card as a final absolute last resort, because if it fails, and you close your account, there is little to nothing else you can try to get what you want. First, talk one-on-one with a personal banker at your local BA branch. You might be surprised at how helpful they can be. Next, try talking to customer service on the phone. After that, you might try sending a letter to corporate HQ. A lot depends on the particular \"\"feature\"\" you are talking about and why they removed it. It could be that 1) the bank finds the feature is just too costly provide for free, 2) there may be a technical reason why they can no longer provide it, 3) it could be as simple as that few to none of their customers (excluding you) are actually using the feature, or 4) it could be that due to changing regulation, or market forces, no bank is offering that feature anymore. Also, while they may not care specifically about your business, the local branch has an incentive to not drive customers away if it can be reasonably avoided.\""
},
{
"docid": "496370",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yeah, I'll take the challenge...:) How trustworthy these are and what are their sources of income? These are in fact two separate questions, but the answers are related. How trustworthy? As trustworthy as they're clear about their own sources of income. If you cannot find any clue as to why, what for and how they're paying you - you probably should walk away. What's too good to be true usually is indeed too good to be true. For those of the sites that I know of their sources of income, it is usually advertisements and surveys. To get paid, you have to watch advertisements and/or answer surveys. I know of some sites who are legit, and pay people (not money, but gift cards, airline miles, etc) for participating in surveys. My own HMO (Kaiser in California) in fact pays (small amounts) to members who participate in enough surveys, so its legit. Are these sites worthwhile to consider for extra income? Not something you could live off, but definitely can get you enough gift cards for your weekly trip to Starbucks. What do I need to consider tax wise? Usually the amounts are very low, and are not paid in cash. While it is income, I doubt the IRS will chase you if you don't report the $20 Amazon gift card you got from there. It should, strictly speaking, be reported (probably as hobby income) on your tax return. Most people don't bother dealing with such small amounts though. In some cases (like the HMO I mentioned), its basically a rebate of the money paid (you pay your copays, deductibles etc. Since the surveys are only for members, you basically get your money back, not additional income). This is in fact similar to credit card rebates. Is there a best practice for handling the income? If we're talking about significant amounts (more than $20-30 a year), then you need to keep track of the income and related expenses, and report it as any other business income on your taxes, Schedule C. Is there a good test to determine what is and isn't a scam? As I said - if it looks too good to be true - it most likely is. If you're required to provide your personal/financial information without any explanation as to why, what it will be used for, and why and what for you're going to be paid - I'd walk away. Otherwise, you can also check Internet reviews, BBB ratings, FTC information and the relevant state agencies and consumer watchdogs (for example: http://www.scamadviser.com) whether they've heard of that particular site, and what is the information they have on it. A very good sign for a scam is contact information. Do they have a phone number to call to? Is it in your own country? If its not in your own country - definitely go away (for example the original link that was in the question pointed to a service whose phone number is in the UK, but listed address is in Los Angeles, CA. A clear sign of a scam). If they do have a phone number - try it, talk to them, call several times and see how many different people you're going to talk to. If its always the same person - run and hide. Do they have an address? If not - walk away. If they do - look it up. Is it a PMB/POB? A \"\"virtual\"\" office? Or do they have a proper office set up, which you can see on the map and in the listings as their office? And of course your guts. If your guts tell you its a scam - it very likely is.\""
},
{
"docid": "78086",
"title": "",
"text": "Whether your card will work, I believe, depends on the institution that issued it. You'll just have to try. What I can tell you, is that the process of using a debit card or credit card in the US is fairly straight forward. If your card has a chip, you'll 'insert' your card, chip end first, into the bottom slot of the reader, assuming the reader has one. This technology is still being distributed / accepted, so you may encounter some areas where they don't have this, or they have an insert or sign that says something along the lines of 'No chip reader / swipe instead'. If your card doesn't have a chip, which looks like the bottom end of a cellular phone's SIM card, you just swipe your card in the reader. There will / may be on-screen prompts, which will explain any additional input necessary from you. Depending on how they 'process' your card - As a debit card or credit card (They can 'process' a debit card as if it's a standard credit card), you may or may not be asked to enter your debit card's PIN. If they process it as debit, you'll have to enter your PIN. If they process it as if it were a credit card, it will still go through but you'll be asked to sign the receipt. IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOTE: You need to find out whether your card issuer will charge you foreign transaction fees when you use your Indian debit card in the US. Is the card carrying a different currency than the US?"
},
{
"docid": "572396",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can charge a fee to accept checks, although I think the better solution might be to offer a small discount for early payment of your invoices. As some people here have suggested, why not add a small bit to your fees to begin with to cover your inconvenience in the case they choose to pay by check? I often will give clients a small discount of 1.5% for paying my invoices within 10 days, which does motivate some to pay sooner, depending on the client and the amount of the invoice. If you've already added a small amount to your fees in the first place then providing the discount is good public relations that doesn't actually cost you anything. You can always add a \"\"convenience fee\"\" for accepting checks, but this is a more negative approach, as though you're penalizing the client for paying by check rather than electronically. Some people do see it this way, despite any efforts you make to explain otherwise. As to your question about adding fees for accepting credit cards, be very careful! There are sometimes state or local laws on this, and you could find yourself in trouble very quickly if you run afoul of one. Here's a good article to read on the subject: Adding fees for accepting credit cards from CreditCards.com Site I hope this is helpful. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "508211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"File a John Doe lawsuit, \"\"plaintiff to be determined\"\", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard. John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this. But it probably won't work. Mastercard would quash your subpoena. They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point). They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible. And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best. It's a hard problem. And I've done the abuse wars professionally. OpSec is a big deal. You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method. The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over. When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it. If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.) So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later. Sorry! I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards). This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely. Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook. That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault. Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert. You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman. There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault. As to the notion of saying \"\"it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault\"\", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely. And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe. Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit. A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards. The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point. Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others. Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it. Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own. So it's likely that \"\"none was leaked\"\" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage. Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload. Site hacking is a well known phenomenon. A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky. It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution.\""
},
{
"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": "442241",
"title": "",
"text": "A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money."
},
{
"docid": "335859",
"title": "",
"text": "As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back."
},
{
"docid": "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": "85003",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd lean toward using the $3,000 from the emergency fund although depending on your monthly bills, a $2,000 emergency fund (or even a $5,000 one) may be a bit small. But here are a couple of other options for you: Zero-interest balance transfers: If you have cards and have a zero balance on them, your credit card companies are keen to see you put a balance on them. Find out if they're offering any \"\"12 months no interest on balance transfers\"\" offers (or if any of their rivals is), since of course the car loan is an outstanding balance you can transfer (you're not asking them for cash). Put the $3,000 on that zero-balance transfer option, get rid of the car, and pay the $300/mo to pay down the balance on the card. 10 months later, two months before the end of the free period, you're at zero again — without dipping into your emergency fund. You'll also now have a history with that card company of paying back, which may lead them to attempt to entice you to go into more debt (which you'll resist, of course) by increasing the limit. (If you don't want a higher limit, just tell them to reduce it again.) A $3,000 unsecured loan with no pre-payment penalty provided the math works out. The interest may be expensive (unless you find something with a teaser rate for the first X months), but if you find an option, do the math on it to see if it's actually more expensive than carrying the car payments, insurance, etc. on a depreciating asset. It may not be as expensive as the 20% rate or whatever makes it sound (but again, do the math), and if you apply your $300/mo to it, within (say) 11 months you're clear again — with a nice little paid-back loan on your credit report. Both of these ensure that you still have your emergency fund at your disposal, and both capitalize on the fact that right now, you're probably a good credit risk. If you dip into your emergency fund, and an emergency happens (like loss of a job) and you find yourself short of funds, you may have trouble securing further credit at that point to cover the gap in your emergency fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "276498",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It sounds like what you are looking for are sites that offer pre-paid debit cards as rewards. A number of survey/get-paid-to sites do offer these as a potential reward; they are more irritating than having the money in a bank account or paypal balance, as they expire if not used within some amount of time, and generally come with restrictions on what you can use them on (they work like credit cards, but the site providing the card can reject your request if it doesn't like the site you're trying to pay.). Plus, you can only use a single debit card per purchase, so if you have two $20 prepaid cards, you can't use them both to make a $40 dollar purchase. Still, this does satisfy your requirements, assuming the game you want to transfer to and the provider of the prepaid card you're being rewarded with are willing to work together. You can use SurveyPolice to search for sites that offer the type of reward you want - filtering by offered reward type is an option under their \"\"pick-a-perk\"\" page. Though it's likely many of those sites also require you to be at least 18 as well, as that's a pretty common restriction - you'll have to verify that part yourself. For that matter, you would want to check age restrictions on the sites those sites partner with to offer prepaid cards, as well.\""
},
{
"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": "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": "111466",
"title": "",
"text": "When you start living in US, it doesn't actually matter what was your Credit history in another country. Your Credit History in US is tied to your SSN (Social Security Number), which will be awarded once you are in the country legally and apply for it. Getting an SSN also doesn't guarantee you nothing and you have to build your credit history slowly. Opening a Checking or Savings account will not help you in building a credit history. You need to have some type of Credit Account (credit card, car loan, mortgage etc.) linked to your SSN to start building your credit history. When you are new to US, you probably won't find any bank that will give you a Credit Card as you have no Credit history. One alternative is to apply for a secured credit card. A secured credit card is one you get by putting money or paying money to a bank and open a Credit Card against that money, thereby the bank can be secure that they won't lose any money. Once you have that, you can use that to build up your credit history slowly and once you have a good credit history and score, apply for regular Credit Card or apply for a car loan, mortgage etc. When I came to US 8 years ago, my Credit History was nothing, even though I had pretty good balance and credit history back in my country. I applied for secured credit card by paying $500 to a bank ( which got acquired by CapitalOne ), got it approved and used it for everything, for three years. I applied for other cards in the mean time but got rejected every time. Finally got approved for a regular credit card after three years and in one year added a mortgage and car loan, which helped me to get a decent score now. And Yes, a good Credit Score is important and essential for renting an apartment, leasing a car, getting a Credit Card etc. but normally your employer can always arrange for an apartment given your situation or you need to share apartment with someone else. You can rent a car without and credit score, but need a valid US / International Drivers license and a Credit Card :-) Best option will be to open a secured credit card and start building your credit. When your wife and family arrives, they also will be assigned individual SSN and can start building their credit history themselves. Please keep in mind that Credit Score and Credit History is always individual here..."
}
] |
5592 | Are “hard money loans” meant only for real estate? | [
{
"docid": "355241",
"title": "",
"text": "From Wikipedia: A hard money loan is a specific type of asset-based loan financing through which a borrower receives funds secured by the value of a parcel of real estate. Hard money loans are typically issued at much higher interest rates than conventional commercial or residential property loans and are almost never issued by a commercial bank or other deposit institution. Hard money is similar to a bridge loan, which usually has similar criteria for lending as well as cost to the borrowers. The primary difference is that a bridge loan often refers to a commercial property or investment property that may be in transition and does not yet qualify for traditional financing, whereas hard money often refers to not only an asset-based loan with a high interest rate, but possibly a distressed financial situation, such as arrears on the existing mortgage, or where bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings are occurring. This implies to me that these loans are only against real estate. Presumably, because it doesn't move and can't be simply taken away, as in the case where you have say, a high value diamond or painting."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "19837",
"title": "",
"text": "There are tax strategies you could take advantage of if you own the property. Find local real estate investors that like 'buy and hold'. Additional strategy is to buy a property and sell it with owner financing (you use a Residential Mortgage Loan Officer to facilitate.) What is great is you can get a great % real return on your money without being a landlord."
},
{
"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": "481874",
"title": "",
"text": "Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year."
},
{
"docid": "442122",
"title": "",
"text": "All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake."
},
{
"docid": "447499",
"title": "",
"text": "Is that really true though? He brought in via hedge fund when the stock was multiples more in 2004. He loaned it a bunch of money, many billions. He gets the Sears commerial real estate via Seritage but anyone who seen commercial real estate lately knows the market is flooded with excess square footage, retail is being stomped in general, and that Sears/Kmart strip malls in many cases aren't the prime areas anymore. I can see him making out better than the average Stockholder who keeps on holding onto it but nowhere near recuperating his investment. In fact, the average guy could and would have dropped it long ago with an simple website login, these big investors don't have that luxury of dumping stock on a whim so they go down with the ship. http://fortune.com/2017/03/31/sears-eddie-lampert-net-worth-hedge-fund/"
},
{
"docid": "358581",
"title": "",
"text": "The only thing the book advises to do is to start an LLC that invests in real estate, then deduct everything you do as a business expense related to investing in real estate. Going on a vacation to Hawaii? Deduct it, you were checking out real estate. And so on and so forth."
},
{
"docid": "387908",
"title": "",
"text": "For a real estate transaction there are multiple stages: From the sellers viewpoint: From the buyers viewpoint: If both parties are comfortable skipping some of the steps the role of the agent can be minimized. How will a fair price be determined? Some realism might be needed, to make sure that the loan appraisal will not be a problem. Will an inspection still be needed? What warranty will exist if the A/C dies this summer? If you still want help from an agent one should be able to help for far less than the normal commission. The seller normally interviews three agents before selecting one, do the same in this situation. Ask how much they would charge for a sale between friends. They can complete their task in just a couple of hours. If the home inspection comes back relatively clean, the transaction should be very easy. The paperwork is the biggest hurdle. You should jointly identify a local settlement company. They will be the ones actually filing the paperwork. They have lawyers. They will check the county records office for existing liens, plats, mortgages and address all the issues. They can send the proper paperwork to the existing mortgage companies and arrange for mortgage insurance. The cost will be the same regardless of the presence of real estate agents and other lawyers. When they say a lawyer is required, it is only because of the paperwork."
},
{
"docid": "115111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\""
},
{
"docid": "423438",
"title": "",
"text": "Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now. Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role. There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes."
},
{
"docid": "419015",
"title": "",
"text": "> Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill Of those, the only thing I don't pay are export, import and duties. Which, if you're going in to business for yourself you'd probably know about these already."
},
{
"docid": "364567",
"title": "",
"text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her."
},
{
"docid": "123621",
"title": "",
"text": "There's some differences between 2008 and now. Bush, then Obama didn't want to go after the bankers too hard because 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. 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."
},
{
"docid": "323145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have personally invested $5,000 in a YieldStreet offering (a loan being used by a company looking to expand a ridesharing fleet), and would certainly recommend taking a closer look if they fit your investment goals and risk profile. (Here's a more detailed review I wrote on my website.) YieldStreet is among a growing crop of companies launched as a result of legislative and regulatory changes that began with the JOBS Act in 2012 (that's a summary from my website that I wrote after my own efforts to parse the new rules) but didn't fully go into effect until last year. Most of them are in Real Estate or Angel/Venture, so YieldStreet is clearly looking to carve out a niche by assembling a rather diverse collection of offerings (including Real Estate, but also other many other categories). Unlike angel/venture platforms (and more like the Real Estate platforms), YieldStreet only offers secured (asset-backed) investments, so in theory there's less risk of loss of principal (though in practice, these platforms haven't been through a serious stress test). So far I've stuck with relatively short-term investments on the debt crowdfunding platforms (including YieldStreet), and at least for the one I chose, it includes monthly payments of both principal and interest, so you're \"\"taking money off the table\"\" right away (though presumably then are faced with how to redeploy, which is another matter altogether!) My advice is to start small while you acclimate to the various platforms and investment options. I know I was overwhelmed when I first decided to try one out, and the way I got over that was to decide on the maximum I was willing to lose entirely, and then focus on finding the first opportunity that looked reasonable and would maximize what I could learn (in my case it was a $1,000 in a fix-and-flip loan deal via PeerStreet).\""
},
{
"docid": "568629",
"title": "",
"text": "Wow! First, congratulations! You are both making great money. You should be able to reach your goals. Are we on the right track ? Are we doing any mistakes which we could have avoided ? Please advice if there is something that we should focus more into ! I would prioritize as follows: Get on the same page. My first red flag is that you are listing your assets separately. You and your wife own property together and are raising your daughter together. The first thing is to both be on the same page with your combined income and assets. This is critical. Set specific goals for the future. Dreaming and big-picture life planning will be the foundation for building a detailed plan for reaching your goals. You will see more progress with more sacrifice. If you both are not equally excited about the goals, you will not both be equally willing to sacrifice lifestyle now. You have the income now to be able to set yourselves up to do whatever you want in 10 years, if you can agree on what you want. Hire a financial planner you trust. Interview people, ask someone who is where you want to be in 10 years. You need someone with experience that can guide you through these questions and understands how to manage your income stream. Start saving for retirement in tax-advantaged accounts. This should be as much as 10%-15% of your income combined, so $30k-$45k per year. You need to start diversifying your investments. Real estate is great, but I would never recommend it as this large a percentage of net worth. Start saving for your child's education. Hard to say what you need here, since I don't know your goals. A financial planner should assist you with this. Get rid of your debt. Out of your $2.1M of rental real estate and land, you have $1.4M of debt. It will be difficult to start a business with that much additional debt. It will also put stress on your retirement that you don't need. You are taking on lots of risk here. I would sell all but maybe one of the properties and let it cash flow. This will free up cash to start investing for retirement or future business too. Buy more rental in the future with cash only. You have plenty of income to do it this way, and you will be setting yourself up for a great future. At this point you can continue to pile funds into any/all your investments, with the goal of using the funds to start a business or to live on. If all your investments are tied up in real estate, you wont have anything to draw on if needed for a business opportunity. You need to weigh this out in your goal and planning. What should we do to prepare for a comfortable retirement and safety You cannot plan for or see all scenarios. However, good planning will give you more options and more choices. Investing driven by fear will set you up for failure. Spend less than you make. Be patient. Be generous. Cheers!"
},
{
"docid": "276830",
"title": "",
"text": "Something that you omitted in your question is whether this prospective purchase is a single family residence (SFR) or some other type of real property. If this is an investment purchase as you say it is, then the only real way to tell it is worth what you are willing to pay is based on the income it produces. Once you complete an income and expense analysis you can get a CAP rate to compare it to other like properties in the area. This is the best way to value income/investment real estate. If you don't know what a CAP rate is and how to calculate it, then you might be over your head a bit. Another important aspect to consider is the reason to pay all cash for this property. The main reason to invest in real estate is to use the banks money as leverage. Again, you should understand these kinds of basic real estate concepts before you dive into purchasing investment property."
},
{
"docid": "244811",
"title": "",
"text": "If it was me, I would consider selling both properties. Unless of course your renters from the first house are very, very good; and you have a good handy man in the area. Managing real estate from a distance is tricky, and $400 per month is not a lot of wiggle room. You would be taking on a lot of risk with only 40K in the bank, a 200K salary, three mortgages (one likely a jumbo) and a student loan. Yea, if it was me I would sell both."
},
{
"docid": "119277",
"title": "",
"text": "Is this really a net effect of concentration of wealth? When so few people hold all the money, you need more money to keep the system running. Imagine we need 10 trillion to keep the economy running. If 1000 people hold 50%, you effectively need 5 trillion just to keep the economy running. It is somewhat ironic that the last time we had full employment was basically the real estate bubble where tons of money was dumped into the system by liar loans with no credit check. Not saying we want to go back there, but perhaps we need that level of money in the system to get full employment. If we want to get there safely, we need to buy back our debt, invest more in our infrastructure and provide more services. This is the only way we are going to get full employment"
},
{
"docid": "569211",
"title": "",
"text": "A $100K house and $100K are not equivalent assets. Here's a hypothetical... You and I both work for the same company, and both get a $100K bonus (yes, I said it's hypothetical). You decide to use the $100K to pay off your house. I put the money in the bank. Six months later, our company lays both of us off. I have $100K in the bank. I can last for quite a while with that much money in the bank. You have a house, but you can't get a mortgage or home equity loan, because you don't have a job. The only way you can access the money is by selling the house, which requires you to pay money to a real estate agent and perhaps taxes, and leaves you looking for a place to live. That assumes there isn't something systemic going on - like the credit crash - and there is credit available for somebody else to buy your house."
},
{
"docid": "260075",
"title": "",
"text": "Take some of the commentary on home buying forums with a grain of salt. I too have read some of the commentary on these forums such as myFICO, Trulia, or Zillow and rarely is the right advice given or proper followup done. Typical 401k withdrawals for home purchase would not be considered a hardship. However, most employer 401k plans will allow you to take a loan for 401k as long as you provide suitable documentation: HUD-1 statement, Real Estate Contract, Good Faith Estimate, or some other form of suitable documentation as described by the plan administrator. For instance, I just took a 401k loan to pay for closing costs and I had to provide only the real estate contract. Could I not follow through with the contract? Sure, but what if I am found out for fraud? Then the plan administrator would probably end up turning the distribution into a taxable distribution. I wouldn't go to jail in this hypothetical situation - I am only stealing from myself. But the law states that certain loan situations are not liable for tax as long as that situation still exists. In the home loan situation, my employer allows for a low interest, 10 year loan. My employer also allows for a pre-approved loan for any purpose. This would be a low interest, 5 year loan. There is also the option to not do a loan at all. But normally that is only allowed after you have exhausted all your loan options and the government makes it intentionally harsh (30% penalty at least) to discourage people from dumping their tax free haven 401k accounts. That all being said, many plans offer no prepayment penalty. So like my employer has for us, I can pay it all back in full whenever I want or make micropayments every month. Otherwise, it comes out of my pay stub biweekly. So if it were to fall through, I could just put it all back like it never happened. Though with my plan, there is a cooling off period of 7 days before I can take another loan. Keep in mind that if you leave your employer then the full amount becomes a taxable distribution unless you pay it back within a certain period of time after leaving the employer. Whether this fits your financial situation is up to you, but a loan is definitely preferred over a partial or full withdrawal since you are paying yourself back for your rightly earned retirement which is just as important."
}
] |
5616 | How and where do companies publish financial reports? | [
{
"docid": "391291",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes it is true. The US based companies have to meet the requirements placed on them by the US government. The agency with all these reports is the Security and Exchange Commission. They run the EDGAR system to hold all those required reports The SEC’s EDGAR database provides free public access to corporate information, allowing you to quickly research a company’s financial information and operations by reviewing registration statements, prospectuses and periodic reports filed on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You also can find information about recent corporate events reported on Form 8-K but that a company does not have to disclose to investors. EDGAR also provides access to comment and response letters relating to disclosure filings made after August 1, 2004, and reviewed by either the Division of Corporation Finance or the Division of Investment Management. On May 22, 2006, the staffs of the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Investment Management began to use the EDGAR system to issue notifications of effectiveness for Securities Act registration statements and post-effective amendments, other than those that become effective automatically by law. These notifications will be posted to the EDGAR system the morning after a filing is determined to be effective. As pointed out by Grade 'Eh' Bacon: Other countries may require different types of information to be reported to the public, in particular, financial statements. To find the financial statements released for a particular company, you can go to the appropriate stock exchange, or often simply the company's corporate website."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "464668",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The mutual fund is legally its own company that you're investing in, with its own expenses. Mutual fund expense ratios are a calculated value, not a promise that you'll pay a certain percentage on a particular day. That is to say, at the end of their fiscal year, a fund will total up how much it spent on administration and divide it by the total assets under management to calculate what the expense ratio is for that year, and publish it in the annual report. But you can't just \"\"pay the fee\"\" for any given year. In a \"\"regular\"\" account, you certainly could look at what expenses were paid for each fund by multiplying the expense ratio by your investment, and use it in some way to figure out how much additional you want to contribute to \"\"make it whole\"\" again. But it makes about as much sense as trying to pay the commission for buying a single stock out of one checking account while paying for the share price out of another. It may help you in some sort of mental accounting of expenses, but since it's all your money, and the expenses are all part of what you're paying to be able to invest, it's not really doing much good since money is fungible. In a retirement account with contribution limits, it still doesn't really make sense, since any contribution from outside funds to try to pay for expense ratios would be counted as contributions like any other. Again, I guess it could somehow help you account for how much money you wanted to contribute in a year, but I'm not really sure it would help you much. Some funds or brokerages do have non-expense-ratio-based fees, and in some cases you can pay for those from outside the account. And there are a couple cases where for a retirement account this lets you keep your contributions invested while paying for fees from outside funds. This may be the kind of thing that your coworker was referring to, though it's hard to tell exactly from your description. Usually it's best just to have investments with as low fees as possible regardless, since they're one of the biggest drags on returns, and I'd be very wary of any brokerage-based fees when there are very cheap and free mutual fund brokerages out there.\""
},
{
"docid": "187763",
"title": "",
"text": "Your experience supports my point, though. New Zealand is currently freer, economically speaking than America. According to an annual report published by the Heritage Foundation in America, New Zealand is in 3rd place globally. America is 17th. You actually have far less government than we do."
},
{
"docid": "287540",
"title": "",
"text": "I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings."
},
{
"docid": "171135",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\""
},
{
"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": "284483",
"title": "",
"text": "> Shouldn't all pieces from think tanks be thoroughly fact-checked? > Whether it be CATO, Center for American Progress, Brookings, Heritage, or AEI, it seems reckless to me to publish their pieces without fact-checking. I agree. Nothing that gets published as news should escape fact-checking. This goes double for opinion pieces. This is an inevitable consequence of treating journalism as merely stenography, reporting what is said without consideration for accuracy. However, > I don't even fault Stephen Moore for this. His job is to spread certain economic views.(ones that I tend to disagree with strongly, but that's his job) I don't think anyone's job is to simply spread an economic, political or any other view. I think any job involving analysis should include an imperative to make sure the views expressed are supported by facts, not to filter or alter the facts to favor a view. The latter is what Moore has been doing."
},
{
"docid": "284809",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's the detailed section of IRS Pub 590 It looks like you intended to have a \"\"trustee to trustee conversion\"\", but the receiving trustee dropped their ball. The bad news is, a \"\"rollover contribution\"\" needed to be done in 60 days of the distribution. There is good news, you can request an extension from the IRS, with one of the reasons if there was an error by one of the financial institutions involved. Other waivers. If you do not qualify for an automatic waiver, you can apply to the IRS for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement. To apply for a waiver, you must submit a request for a letter ruling under the appropriate IRS revenue procedure. This revenue procedure is generally published in the first Internal Revenue Bulletin of the year. You must also pay a user fee with the application. The information is in Revenue Procedure 2016-8 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2016-1 available at www.irs.gov/irb/2016-01_IRB/ar14.html. In determining whether to grant a waiver, the IRS will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: Whether errors were made by the financial institution (other than those described under Automatic waiver , earlier); Whether you were unable to complete the rollover due to death, disability, hospitalization, incarceration, restrictions imposed by a foreign country, or postal error; Whether you used the amount distributed (for example, in the case of payment by check, whether you cashed the check); and How much time has passed since the date of distribution. You can also see if you can get ETrade to \"\"recharacterize\"\" the equity position to your desired target IRA. The positive here is that the allowed decision window for calendar year 2016 rollovers is October 15 2017; the negatives are this is irrevocable, and restricts certain distributions from the target for a year (unlikely to impact your situation, but, you know, \"\"trust but verify\"\" anonymous internet advice); and it requires ETrade to recognize the original transaction was a rollover to a Roth IRA, which they currently don't. But if their system lets them put it through you could end up with the amount in a traditional IRA with no other taxable events to report, which appears to be your goal. Recharacterization FAQ\""
},
{
"docid": "575131",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Do you think that publishers haven't thought this through pretty carefully already? You can't *easily* make a thousand copies of a dead-tree book and give it to all your friends, or make it available to millions on the internet. (Possible? Sure. But not without a ton of work and hassle.) Publishers rely on customers buying paper books for their personal consumption, and figure that they might loan the book out once or twice - big deal. They still get paid. Without DRM, publishers would basically be inviting the public at large to steal their e-book product. Marginal costs to copying a \"\"book file\"\" are nothing, unlike in the paper comparison, so everyone would do it if they could. Sure, the DRM is easy to hack, but the vast majority of the public isn't going to do that or know how. Just like for video games - the publishers know some folks will do it, but enough don't that it makes the product profitable. DRM is what creates the whole business model for e-books in the first place. By the way, Amazon's DRM doesn't lock you into using the Kindle. The official Kindle app for the iPad works just fine, and I read many books with it.\""
},
{
"docid": "11263",
"title": "",
"text": "The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3."
},
{
"docid": "147624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\""
},
{
"docid": "439474",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\""
},
{
"docid": "258121",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal) >He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. > >Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. > >After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. > >As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said. I'm not sure what you're talking about here: >And what are you talking about freedom to \"\"compete\"\" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened? I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones. As for the list of \"\"positives\"\" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) >Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. > >One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: >The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously.\""
},
{
"docid": "14461",
"title": "",
"text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date."
},
{
"docid": "54916",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Others have covered this pretty well, but as someone who once worked for the company that allows Stansberry to publish, let me confirm that their business is about getting you to buy into the financial worldview they promote so that they can sell you more and more \"\"newsletters\"\" and \"\"services\"\". Nothing else. It's a marketing company, and Stansberry is nothing more than a copywriter.\""
},
{
"docid": "545421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over \"\"your\"\" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a \"\"credit\"\" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its \"\"affiliates\"\" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any \"\"suspicious\"\" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these \"\"suspicious actions\"\", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to \"\"endorse\"\" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are \"\"investigating\"\" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write \"\"X\"\" there and they would deposit it.\""
},
{
"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": "100721",
"title": "",
"text": "a) Nothing would support this company going back to $.50 per share b) Fundamentally the market for this sectors has been obliterated and the fundamentals don't look like they will improve. Similar companies experience what this one is and will be going through, they borrow the hilt and hope they can pump enough oil and sell the oil at a high price. Oil goes below, WAYYY below the price they can sell it at and even break even, so they are burning cash until they declare bankruptcy. This company is not an exception. So here is what to look at on their balance sheet: assets and liabilities. Liabilities are debt. Their debt is over 50% of their assets, that debt has interest and there is NO WAY they are making a profit. Their website's last financial statement is from September 30th.. LOL, so they haven't even released a quarterly financial statement in two quarters straight, so have they released anything? Given what we know about the dire state of the entire oil drilling industry, lets see if these guys are the exception to the rule (spoiler; they aren't) February 15th, 2015 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/strategic-oil-gas-ltd-provides-operations-update-2015-02-19-16173591 The Company prudently elected to stop the winter Muskeg drilling program in order to preserve capital. So now they aren't even getting new assets to resale, they aren't making any money from that operation, their debt still has interest payments though. Approximately 700 Boe/d of production has been shut-in by suspending operations at Bistcho, Cameron Hills and Larne, which are not economic at current commodity prices. Predictable. Also, you should notice from their actual financial statements (from 6 months ago, lol) (when the price of oil was over 100% higher than it is today, lol), this company already wasn't a good performer. They have been financing themselves by doing private placements, by issuing shares to investors that are not you, and diluting the share value of ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS. Dead in the water. I got this from skimming their financial report, without even being familiar with how canadian companies report. Its just bad news. You shouldn't be married to this investment."
},
{
"docid": "92593",
"title": "",
"text": "Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility"
},
{
"docid": "559105",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!"
}
] |
5620 | What's the fuss about identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "448784",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem is that the reason you find out may be that you are at the car dealer, picked out a car, and getting ready to sign the loan papers with your supposedly good credit, and you are denied for late payment on loans you didn't know you have. Or debt collectors start hounding you. Or you credit card interest rates go up. Or you are charged more for your insurance because you are seen as a bad credit risk. Or you can't rent an apartment. The list is almost endless. It can takes many months and hours spent on the phone to fix these things."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "173649",
"title": "",
"text": "So could someone working at your bank directly. Of at your HR department at work. Most of the wait staff at the restaurant I ate at technically had access to my credit card and could steal money. While you are at work, someone could break into your house and steal your stuff too. The point is, Mint and everything else is a matter of the evaluating the risk. Since you already understand the vulnerability (they have your accounts) and you know the risk (they could steal your money) what are the chances it happens? 1.) Mint will make lots more money if it doesn't happen, so it benefits Intuit to pay their employees well and put in safeguards to prevent theft. Mint.com is on your side even if a specific employee isn't. 2.) You have statements and such, so you can independently evaluate mint. I do not just trust mint with my stuff, I check info in Quicken and at the bank sites themselves. I don't do them all equally, but I will catch problems. 3.) Laws mean that if theft happens, you will have the opportunity to be made whole. If you are worried about theft, don't trust other people or generally get a bad feeling, don't do it. If you check your accounts online with the same computer you log into Facebook with, them I would suggest it doesn't bother you. You might have legal or business reasons to be more adverse to risk then me. However, just because somebody could steal your money, I personally don't consider it an acceptable risk compared to the reward. I will also be one of the first people to be robbed, I am not unrealistic."
},
{
"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": "99894",
"title": "",
"text": "True Financial is your lender of choice for online auto title loans in California. Car Title Loans can be arrange with minimal fuss, low hassle and low documentation. There are number of easy ways for you to finance through us and lead the way in making fast, cost effective title loans to help you. Best of all you get to keep your car to enjoy as you usually do."
},
{
"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": "321058",
"title": "",
"text": "\"HFTs, that serve no purpose other than to make themselves money, pay a premium to the enthusiastically complicit exchanges for the privilege of scalping those that do not. Their profits are not the result of any \"\"growth\"\" or \"\"service rendered\"\". Their profits are the result of a completely unnecessary tax on the system that amounts to theft out of the pockets of regular investors. Which part did I get wrong? I'm just a guy with a considerable portion of my retirement in an employer 401k, who's not thrilled about losing *any* compounding interest to these parasites. I'm not shilling for anybody. On the other hand, one has to wonder what has guys like you so upset about IEX.\""
},
{
"docid": "504989",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\""
},
{
"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": "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": "358603",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> How is putting a gun to a persons head and saying give me your money or else I will cuff you and put you in jail not stealing? I've had [other discussions about why taxes are not theft](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/). > If...they aren't disabled then they are just lazy. I think there are a whole lot of people who struggle to work but are neither. How about a single mother with young kids and no help? Someone raised on the street with no idea what it takes to get a job? Someone with general pain or fibromayalgia? Someone addicted to drugs or alcohol? Maybe just someone who just can't take control of his or her life because a lowered IQ caused by lead poisoning or poor nutrition as a child? I totally agree that a \"\"tough love\"\" approach is a great solution for lazy but if the person has a real problem or lacks the tools to succeed, then the approach is not only cruel but will push the person into what looks like from the outside as more irresponsible behavior.\""
},
{
"docid": "119879",
"title": "",
"text": "I had an internship and they hired me afterwards. Honestly sounded like a good way to break in. I also learned a whole new language for the internship and wanted to continue using it instead of any of the languages taught in school. Not sure if the company would be considered good or bad. I ended up being solo for a long time but also building three applications ground up. I felt like I was improving a lot, especially on projects they gave me lots of leeway on because they were low priority (they just wanted features, no emergency bug tickets, etc). But no peers for most of my work and all the software was privately made and privately licensed/sold. I also had difficulties leaving because I'm an idiot. With no backup me leaving basically meant they would be fucked, and they were my only reference. I was fine taking that salary because I had zero experience (no job. Ever. Not even volunteering. My mother wouldn't let me because of snobbiness), however once I was more valuable to this company and they even praised me for it in the assessments -- they gave out 2% raises. Later my bonuses decreased as my hours and responsibilities increased, too. I asked to be taken off the stressful project, thinking I could salvage this, and they hired a replacement for me to train 3 months later. I got the high leeway project again for 6 months and my job satisfaction was phenomenal by comparison so i stayed. However, then my replacement was fired... So they asked me as a favour to work on the stressful project again and said they would replace me in a month and a half. They didn't. I worked on it for 8 months, I kept asking about it too. Their job posting was also terrible and they roped me in on it at the end and I gained the responsibility of recruiting and vetting (yay for that one actually...). We hired another replacement for me, I trained them too, and left immediately. Actually I regret staying there as long as I did. They gaslit me and I shouldn't have tried to make up for their incompetence. They actually made me a contractor at the end so I was getting paid half of what I originally was. Before I left I asked for a competitive raise and the company owner basically lied about details and tried to tell me what a fuss I was trying to talk about my happiness and what I want once a year... It was surreal but they agreed to bump my pay in the end. However, I was furious by their treatment and reply (which BTW came after I 'suddenly did not show up' despite bolding and clearly stating I would cease work with them and informing the people I worked with on the last day that I heard nothing back from the owner about a new/extended contract), so I said no. I don't know how to negotiate. I am too humble. Selling oneself or seeing someone sell themselves makes me physically uncomfortable. It is completely unnatural, and sets off my bullshit alarms. Actually I seem to have some PTSD from that job, now, too..."
},
{
"docid": "374409",
"title": "",
"text": "This was a good move by Amazon. If you don't already get your groceries delivered, you should really give it a shot. It's often free delivery a few times for new signups. Your produce, meat, everything is picked from the very best. It's delivered in a fridge/freezer truck to your home. I just have them hand bags off to me, quick and done in a few minutes. The amount of money i've saved from using grocery delivery is amazing. I'm a single guy, i don't shop all to well myself when i'm actually in a store. I grab expensive chips and stuff I didn't plan on buying. This way I plan out meals, google recipes for what's on sale, and don't even need to leave the house the entire time. Amazon's trying to do exactly this. That's great, but it's so cheap and awesome right now, you should really give it a shot to see what all the fuss is about. edit: talking about king soopers, safeway, etc. I've tried all who offer it, service and experience is great across them all so far."
},
{
"docid": "567693",
"title": "",
"text": "Or what, exactly? What happens if all of the media just ignore this 'order' and do it anyway, since it's a damned **press briefing**... I'd be raising a hell of a fuss if I were a journalist. This is completely moronic. They can't pull everyone's credentials over something this bizarre."
},
{
"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": "333784",
"title": "",
"text": "Currently my online savings account pays an interest rate of 1.25%. With 100K, I can earn about $104 per month in that account. No risk, no timing, no fuss. So in theory you can make money by small changes in the valuations of stock. However there are often better, risk free options for your money; or, there are much better options for returns with much less risk, but more than that of a bank account."
},
{
"docid": "253489",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no benefit in life insurance as such (ie, death insurance.) There is a great deal of value in other types though: total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance (a lump sum for a major medical event), and income protection insurance (cover against a temporary but disabling medical condition). If you don't have that, you should get it right now. This is about the most important insurance you can carry. Being unable to work for the rest of your life has a far larger impact than having, say, your car stolen. ... If, later on, you acquire dependents, and you feel you ought to have life insurance, then you will have a relationship with a life insurance company, and maybe they will let you upgrade from income/TPD to income/TPD/life without too much fuss or requalification. Some do; whether yours would I don't know. But at least you have a toe in the door with them, in a way that is infinitely more immediately useful than getting life insurance that you don't actually need."
},
{
"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": "345942",
"title": "",
"text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal."
},
{
"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": "206804",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is not a \"\"better world\"\" when all we've done is trade one set of victims for another. There is nothing \"\"Fair\"\" about FORCING one citizen to do what the mob thinks they should. \"\"Life, liberty, and the pursute of happiness and all that\"\" does not include being able to force other people to do what YOU want with THEIR property. This is theft by any reasonable definition. The only civil rights that are ever morally justified are *before the law as a citizen*. Your government should treat all its citizens equally. There is no sense in which this ought to translate to the private sector except under voluntary conditions, not by the state shoving a gun in your ear and forcing you to do so.\""
}
] |
5620 | What's the fuss about identity theft? | [
{
"docid": "171510",
"title": "",
"text": "While everything can be fixed in the end, and you can usually get all your money back, recovering from identity theft can take months or years. In the meantime, these are some of the things which you might not be able to do: In addition, you could face the following events: For all that, checking your credit report / score once or twice a year is probably enough. If you're planning on a major purchase, though, you should get a copy of your full credit report from all three major bureaus (Equifax, Transunion and Experian) a few months ahead of time. Even if everything on them is kosher, having that information on hand will give you a leg up when you go for financing."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "506108",
"title": "",
"text": "\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\""
},
{
"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": "345942",
"title": "",
"text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal."
},
{
"docid": "285135",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\""
},
{
"docid": "1136",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not sure what can be done about that unless you happen to be home every day? I'm gone 12 hours a day but fortunately (knock wood) we don't have a bad theft problem in my neighborhood. I think ringing the doorbell is sufficient in that you can immediately go and get it."
},
{
"docid": "504989",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\""
},
{
"docid": "166522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\""
},
{
"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": "173649",
"title": "",
"text": "So could someone working at your bank directly. Of at your HR department at work. Most of the wait staff at the restaurant I ate at technically had access to my credit card and could steal money. While you are at work, someone could break into your house and steal your stuff too. The point is, Mint and everything else is a matter of the evaluating the risk. Since you already understand the vulnerability (they have your accounts) and you know the risk (they could steal your money) what are the chances it happens? 1.) Mint will make lots more money if it doesn't happen, so it benefits Intuit to pay their employees well and put in safeguards to prevent theft. Mint.com is on your side even if a specific employee isn't. 2.) You have statements and such, so you can independently evaluate mint. I do not just trust mint with my stuff, I check info in Quicken and at the bank sites themselves. I don't do them all equally, but I will catch problems. 3.) Laws mean that if theft happens, you will have the opportunity to be made whole. If you are worried about theft, don't trust other people or generally get a bad feeling, don't do it. If you check your accounts online with the same computer you log into Facebook with, them I would suggest it doesn't bother you. You might have legal or business reasons to be more adverse to risk then me. However, just because somebody could steal your money, I personally don't consider it an acceptable risk compared to the reward. I will also be one of the first people to be robbed, I am not unrealistic."
},
{
"docid": "309702",
"title": "",
"text": "As you see these types of hacks escalate year after year with more and more consequences, at what point does the public realize that collecting immense volumes of personal data in a giant honeypot centralized repository is a bad idea? There is a fundamental difference systemic risk and compartmentalized risk. Compare the technology of bitcoin/blockchains and it becomes obvious quickly that the future of digital security exists in decentralized wide open platforms. Bitcoin gains its security by *allowing* access to everyone, databases such as this Equifax one gain their security by *denying* access to everyone. The traditional approach to IT security is the creation of a bubble boy, buried deep within the private intranet, nestled in tight within it's private VLAN. The swarming AIDS of the internet buzzing around the corporate firewall, just waiting for even a tiny micro-crack to open the flood gates of hell and implode the death star. 143 million Americans now at risk of identity theft even never had a choice."
},
{
"docid": "400447",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's probably a scam or maybe some amateur agency trying to put pressure on their target. Normal garnishment goes through the court system. Just ignore it. Tell your employer they obviously have the wrong person since the SS is wrong. Suing clowns like this is not worth it. Just to clarify this some more for you: Trying to collect on a random person with the same name is called \"\"tagging\"\" in the collection industry. Before 2010 it was common because it was actually easier to legally bully the wrong person (who had money) than the right person who does not have money. That was then, this is now. Various federal and state laws have been passed since that time to prevent identity theft and these laws create big liabilities for debt collectors that try to bully the wrong person. Therefore, it rarely happens anymore, though of course sometimes agencies will still call you if they think they have a soft target. That's what the call to your employer is, just a test. A pro collector (like a law firm) would never call an employer, because they could get sued for doing that, but some amateur working out of his basement might. That's what you are dealing with: some joker in a basement. Such people never sue, they just buy old debt for pennies on the dollar and try random harassing phone calls. Ignore it and he will move on to the next \"\"John Smith\"\" on his list. A lot of lawyers will advise you to \"\"talk\"\" to the collector, correcting their misinformation, blah blah. Lawyers like talking, because the more talk there is, the more money they make. In the real legal world: never talk to your enemy or give them information. The way real courts and judges work is that they don't like plaintiffs who sue the wrong person. In fact, they do not like it VERY MUCH. Very bad things happen in courtrooms to people who sue the wrong person. Judges have VERY short patience in general and they DO NOT LIKE IT when somebody wastes their time by suing the wrong person. Basically what this means is: ignore the guy and he will go away.\""
},
{
"docid": "206804",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is not a \"\"better world\"\" when all we've done is trade one set of victims for another. There is nothing \"\"Fair\"\" about FORCING one citizen to do what the mob thinks they should. \"\"Life, liberty, and the pursute of happiness and all that\"\" does not include being able to force other people to do what YOU want with THEIR property. This is theft by any reasonable definition. The only civil rights that are ever morally justified are *before the law as a citizen*. Your government should treat all its citizens equally. There is no sense in which this ought to translate to the private sector except under voluntary conditions, not by the state shoving a gun in your ear and forcing you to do so.\""
},
{
"docid": "567693",
"title": "",
"text": "Or what, exactly? What happens if all of the media just ignore this 'order' and do it anyway, since it's a damned **press briefing**... I'd be raising a hell of a fuss if I were a journalist. This is completely moronic. They can't pull everyone's credentials over something this bizarre."
},
{
"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": "321058",
"title": "",
"text": "\"HFTs, that serve no purpose other than to make themselves money, pay a premium to the enthusiastically complicit exchanges for the privilege of scalping those that do not. Their profits are not the result of any \"\"growth\"\" or \"\"service rendered\"\". Their profits are the result of a completely unnecessary tax on the system that amounts to theft out of the pockets of regular investors. Which part did I get wrong? I'm just a guy with a considerable portion of my retirement in an employer 401k, who's not thrilled about losing *any* compounding interest to these parasites. I'm not shilling for anybody. On the other hand, one has to wonder what has guys like you so upset about IEX.\""
},
{
"docid": "173444",
"title": "",
"text": "Businesses from food to retail, all assume the risk of spoilage, theft, or any form of lost assets. It's just business. With that said, I'm sure your mom didn't imagine too many ways she could've lost out when opening her nailshop. I'm unsure what the policy is that you're looking for, but my best advice to you would be to cut your losses and learn from this. Hopefully you and your mother can be sure to check or figure out a system to ensure customers don't lie about their payments. Good luck"
},
{
"docid": "64293",
"title": "",
"text": "In the related Should I have separate savings accounts for various savings goals? I discovered the open source Budgeter courtesy of Richard Donkin. Budgeter accomplishes my aim with a minimum of fuss, and I have found it to be quite usable despite the author's self deprecating comments to the contrary. The chart below was built in about 10 minutes, half the time it's taken to write this post. Budgeter doesn't feature handy abilities like CSV/OFX importing or scheduled transactions, which would mean a fair bit of work for bringing in historical data, and it's expressly not designed for accounting or bookkeeping. However for the focussed application of tracking savings across multiple bucket categories and accounts I think it well worth evaluating."
},
{
"docid": "498970",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No need, just look at the father of modern pharmacology: Louis Pasteur, the french scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Career What a surprise: publicly funded research in French universities... You know, the big problem, is that we don't have a dozen parallel universes where we can test various systems to see which one is best in terms of health outcomes. But even the data that you want to go and fetch for me is kind of absurd: the number of new drug discoveries? Who cares? It's not the number that counts, its the end results on public health, longevity... etc! For instance, you can have 10 \"\"new\"\" opioid drugs, not sure that proves anything... Capitalism is known for inventing stuff people don't really need, convincing them through mass marketing that they actually DO need it. You could achieve for instance, the same health outcomes with simple, basic prevention policies, healthy eating, less pollution... than pump complex drugs into people's bodies to compensate for other toxic stuff they inhale or eat.. Anyways, I think that quite simply, we should let capitalist firms do what they are best at: mass production via economies of scale, and let universities that are not only seeking profit do the actual research. Also, public research CAN cope with tons of \"\"wasteful\"\" research. It happens all the time that researchers test correlations that turn out to be negative. No one throws a fuss about it! That's the way research is meant to advance.\""
},
{
"docid": "58590",
"title": "",
"text": "Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Increases in consumer prices follow from inflation. It's not the same as inflation. Some inflation is necessary for a growing economy. If your gross national product is only $1,000, then you can get away with having less money than if your gross national product is $1 trillion. Inflation beyond this, though, is used to allow governments to live beyond their means. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise. There is truth in what azcoastal says about this kind of inflation. It's theft. Governments like inflation because it allows them to pay off their debts with cheaper money."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.